THE 

HISTORY 

OF    NATIONS 


THE 
UNITED  STATES 


THE  HISTORY  OF  NATIONS 

HENRY  CABOT  LODGE,Ph.D.,LLD.  EDITOR-IN-CHIEF 

THE 
UNITED  STATES 

(Volume  One) 
By 

JAMES  WILEORD  GARNER,  Ph.D. 

AND 

HENRY  CABOT  LODGE.Ph.D.X  L.D. 

With  a  Historical  Review 
By 
JOHN  BACH  McMASTER,Ph.D.,Litt.D..LLD. 

Volume  XXIII 


Illustrated 


The  H  .W.  Snow  and  Son  Company 

C  h  i   c    a    0    o 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
JOHN1   D.  MORRIS  &  COMPANY 

Copyright,  1010 
THE  H.  W.  SNOW  &  SOX  COMPANY 


THE   HISTORY   OF  NATIONS 

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF 

HENRY  CABOT  LODGE,  PLD.,  L.L.D. 

Associate  Editors  and  Authors 


ARCHIBALD  HENRY  SAYCE.  LL.D., 

Professor     of    Assyriology,     Oxford     Uni- 
versity 


SIR  ROBERT  K.  DOUGLAS, 

Professor  of  Chinese,  King's  College,  Lon- 
don 


CHRISTOPHER  JOHNSTON,  M.D.,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Professor  of  Oriental  History  and 
Archaeology,  Johns  Hopkins  University 


C.  W.  C.  OMAN,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  History,  Oxford  University 


JEREMIAH  WHIPPLE  JENKS,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  of   Political   Economy  and   Pol- 
itics, Cornell  University 

KANICHI  ASAKAWA,  Ph.D., 

Instructor    in    the    History    of    Japanese 
Civilization,  Yale  University 


THEODOR  MOMMSEN, 

Late   Professor  of   Ancient    History,    Uni- 
versity of  Berlin 


WILFRED  HAROLD  MUNRO,  Ph.D., 

Professor    of    European    History,    Brown 

University 


G.  MERCER  ADAM, 

Historian  and  Editor 


ARTHUR  C.  HOWLAND,  Ph.D., 

^vanif  °f  HiSt0ry'  UniVefSity  °f  Penn'        FRED  MORROW  FLING,  Ph.D.. 


Professor  of  European  History,  University 
of  Nebraska 


CHARLES  MERIVALE,  LL.D., 

Late    Dean   of   Ely,   formerly   Lecturer  in        FRANCOIS  AUGUSTE  MARIE  MIGNET. 


History,  Cambridge  University 


Late  Member  of  the  French  Academy 


J.  HIGGINSON  CABOT,  Ph.D., 

Department  of   History,  Wellesley  College 


JAMES  WESTFALL  THOMPSON,  Ph.D., 

Department     of     History,     University    of 
Chicago 


SIR  WILLIAM  W.  HUNTER,  F.R.S., 

Late  Director-General  of  Statistics  in  India 


SAMUEL  RAWSON  GARDINER,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Modern  History,   King's  Col- 
lege, London 


GEORGE  M.  DUTCHER,  Ph.D., 

Professor  of  History,  Wesleyan  University 


R.  W.  JOYCE,  LL.D., 

Commissioner  for   the   Publication   of  the 
Ancient  Laws  of  Ireland 


VI 


ASSOCIATE  EDITORS  AND  AUTHORS-Continued 


justin  McCarthy,  ll.d., 

Author  and  Historian 


AUGUSTUS  HUNT  SHEARER.  Ph.D.. 

Instructor    in     History,     Trinity    College 
Hartford 


W.  HAROLD  CLAFLIN,  B.A., 

Department    of    History,     Harvard    Uni- 
versity 


PAUL  LOUIS  LEGER, 

Professor  of  the  Slav  Languages,  College 
de  France 


WILLIAM  E.  LINGLEBACH,  Ph.D., 

Assistant  Professor  of  European   History, 
University  of  Pennsylvania 


BAYARD  TAYLOR, 

Former  United  States  Minister  to  Germany 


CHARLES  DANDLIKER,  LL.D., 

President  of  Zurich  University 


SIDNEY  B.  FAY.  Ph.D., 

Professor  of  History,    Dartmouth  College 


ELBERT  JAY  BENTON.  Ph.D., 

Department  of  History,  Western  Reserve 
University 


SIR  EDWARD  S.  CREASY, 

Late  Professor  of  History.  University  Col- 
lege, London 

ARCHIBALD  CARY  COOLIDGE,  Ph.D., 

Assistant    Professor   of    History,    Harvard 
University 

WILLIAM  RICHARD  MORFILL,  M.A., 

Professor  of   Russian   and   other  Slavonic 
Languages,  Oxford  University 

CHARLES  EDMUND  FRYER,  Ph.D., 

Department  of  History,  McGill  University 

E.  C.  OTTE, 

Specialist  on  Scandinavian  History 

EDWARD  S.  CORWIN,  Ph.D., 

Instructor     in     History,     Princeton     Uni- 
versity 


J.  SCOTT  KELTIE,  LL.D., 

President  Royal  Geographical  Society 


ALBERT  GALLOWAY  KELLER,  Ph.D., 

Assistant   Professor  of  the  Science  of  So- 
ciety, Yale  University 


EDWARD  JAMES  PAYNE,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  University  College,  Oxford 


PHILIP  PATTERSON  WELLS,  Ph.D., 

Lecturer  in  History  and  Librarian  of  the 
Law  School,  Yale  University 


FREDERICK  ALBION  OBER, 

Historian,  Author  and  Traveler 


JAMES  WILFORD  GARNER,  Ph.D., 

Professor  of   Political  Science,   University 
of  Illinois 


JOHN  BACH  McMASTER,  Litt.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  History,  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania 


JAMES  LAMONT  PERKINS,  Managing  Editor 


The  editors  and  publishers  desire  to  express  their  appreciation  for  valuable 
advice  and  suggestions  received  from  the  following:  Hon.  Andrew  D.  White, 
LL.D.,  Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Hon.  Charles  Emory  Smith, 
LL.D.,  Professor  Edward  Gaylord  Bourne,  Ph.D.,  Charles  F.  Thwing, 
LL.D.,  Dr.  Emil  Reich,  William  Elliot  Griffis,  LL.D.,  Professor  John 
Martin  Vincent,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  Melvil  Dewey,  LL.D.,  Alston  Ellis,  LL.D., 
Professor  Charles  H.  McCarthy,  Ph.D.,  Professor  Herman  V.  Ames,  Ph.D., 
Professor  Walter  L.  Fleming,  Ph.D.,  Professor  David  Y.  Thomas,  Ph.D., 
Mr.  Otto  Reich  and  Mr.  O.  M.  Dickerson. 

vii 


PREFACE 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work,  written  expressly  for  THE  HIS- 
TORY OF  NATIONS,  it  has  been  the  purpose  of  the  authors  to 
write  for  the  general  reader  a  simple  narrative  of  the  rise  and 
growth  of  the  United  States  from  the  discovery  to  the  present  time. 
In  doing  so,  they  have  striven  to  avoid  unnecessary  and  uninterest- 
ing details  and  have  endeavored  to  give  prominence  only  to  those 
characters  who  have  been  conspicuous  in  determining  our  national 
destiny  and  to  those  measures  and  events  which  may  be  said  to  con- 
stitute the  landmarks  of  our  progress  from  insignificant  colonies  to 
our  present  position  as  one  of  the  great  powers  of  the  world. 

In  the  limited  compass  of  the  work,  it  is  obviously  difficult  to 
describe  thoroughly  all  the  forces  and  movements  which  have  en- 
tered into  our  unparalleled  growth,  and,  hence,  much  has  neces- 
sarily been  omitted  which  would  have  a  proper  place  in  a  more 
elaborate  historical  treatise.  What  is  here  offered  has  been  written 
with  an  honest  effort  at  judicial  fairness  and  historical  accuracy. 
No  pretense  is  made  that  this  work  is  based  on  investigation  of 
primary  sources;  on  the  contrary,  it  rests  mainly  on  the  standard 
and  authoritative  treatises  of  others  who  have  made  extended  stud- 
ies of  special  fields. 

Grateful  acknowledgment  is  hereby  made  to  Professors  Her- 
man V.  Ames,  University  of  Pennsylvania;  Charles  H.  McCarthy, 
Catholic  University  of  America ;  Walter  L.  Fleming,  University  of 
West  Virginia ;  David  Y.  Thomas,  University  of  Florida,  and  Mr. 
O.  M.  Dickerson  for  important  services  rendered  in  the  preparation 
of  this  work. 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  history  of  the  United  States  covers  only  three  hun- 
dred years,  a  brief  space  even  in  the  short  period  for 
which  we  possess  written  records  of  man's  deeds  and 
movements  on  earth.  But  the  importance  of  a  country's  history 
is  not  to  be  measured  merely  by  length  of  days.  The  place  which 
a  nation  occupies  in  the  world,  the  influence  which  it  exercises  in 
the  present,  and  the  future  of  which  it  gives  promise,  make  a  right 
understanding  of  its  origin  and  meaning  as  important  as  that  of  any 
gift  which  can  be  bestowed  by  the  slow  passing  of  the  centuries. 
The  position  of  the  United  States  to-day  in  world  politics,  the 
economic  effect  of  the  vast  industrial  and  commercial  system  built 
up  by  the  American  people,  as  well  as  the  moral,  intellectual  and 
material  influence  which  they  exert,  make  the  country's  history  of 
the  utmost  importance,  especially  in  connection  with  the  study  of 
the  larger  subject  of  Western  civilization,  of  which  America  is  the 
latest  development.  At  the  present  moment,  when  in  a  single  year 
we  are  promised  half-a-dozen  elaborate  and  general  histories  of  the 
United  States,  the  statement  just  made  reads  like  a  rather  tiresome 
truism  which  it  is  needless  to  repeat.  But  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  this  widespread  interest  in  American  history  is  of  very  recent 
growth,  and  it  therefore  may  not  be  amiss,  when  adding  another 
work  to  the  already  long  list,  briefly  to  review  the  past  and  note 
the  process  by  which  the  present  condition,  wherein  there  is  to  be 
found  far  more  than  a  merely  literary  interest,  has  been  reached. 

A  little  more  than  thirty  years  ago  it  was  possible  for  a  boy 
to  enter  Harvard  College  and  after  four  years  of  study  graduate 
with  the  highest  honors  without  knowing  of  the  existence  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  or  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  framed.  What  was  true  of  Harvard  was  true  of  other 
universities  and  colleges.  American  history,  although  occasionally 
taught,  was  not  included  in  the  scheme  of  the  higher  education. 
Boys  entering  college  were  required  to  know  something  of  the 
"  glory  that  was  Greece  and  the  grandeur  that  was  Rome,"  but  they 
were  permitted  to  remain  in  complete  ignorance  of  all  that  related 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

to  the  history  of  their  own  country.  During  the  four  years  of 
the  college  course  they  had  modest  opportunity  to  study  the  history 
of  England  and  Europe,  but  none  to  learn  aught  of  the  United 
States.  This  condition  of  education,  which  seems  so  melancholy 
now,  was  really  the  result  of  a  general  attitude  of  mind  then  pass- 
ing away,  but  which  had  once  been  predominant.  The  usual  opin- 
ion during  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  seems  to  have 
been  that  there  was  no  American  history  worth  telling,  apart  from 
the  adventures  of  the  earliest  settlers  and  the  events  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, which  were  both  connected  so  closely  with  the  history  of 
Europe  that  they  might  fairly  be  deemed  of  some  importance. 
Among  the  most  highly  educated  portion  of  the  community  the 
ignorance  was,  comparatively  speaking,  densest,  and  for  the  very 
obvious  reason  that  the  history  of  democracy,  then  a  new  thing  in 
the  world,  was  entirely  different  in  its  attributes  and  conditions 
from  the  history  with  which  everybody  had  been  familiar  during 
many  centuries.  To  conceive  of  a  history  destitute  of  kings  and 
nobles  and  aristocratic  traditions,  unillumined  by  the  splendor  of 
a  court,  without  the  lights  and  shades  which  the  contrast  of  ranks 
alone  can  give,  was  very  difficult,  because  it  involved  a  new  idea. 
It  always  takes  time  for  people  to  grasp  the  proposition  that  be- 
cause a  thing  is  different  from  that  to  which  they  have  been  accus- 
tomed it  is  not  necessarily  inferior.  Habit  and  prescription,  al- 
though in  their  very  nature  never  fully  realized  nor  perfectly  under- 
stood, are  forces  of  enormous  power  among  men  and  nations. 

American  history  had  also  to  contend  with  feminine  indiffer- 
ence, and  women  influence  largely  the  success  of  historic  writings, 
as  they  do  that  of  other  books.  Macaulay  knew  precisely  the  test 
of  popularity  and  wide  circulation  when  he  said  that  he  wanted  his 
history  to  take  the  place  of  the  novel  on  every  young  lady's  table. 
To  suppose,  therefore,  that  women  would  easily  or  at  once  take  in- 
terest in  the  seemingly  stern,  gray  story  of  state  building  and  war, 
of  law-making  and  constitutions,  stripped,  as  it  was  in  America,  of 
all  the  glitter  and  romance  and  refinement  which  clung  about  the 
history  of  monarchies  and  empires  to  which  they  had  always  been 
accustomed,  would  have  been  to  expect  too  much.  "  Fishers  and 
choppers  and  ploughmen,"  constituting  a  state  in  Emerson's  noble 
verse,  were  very  fine,  but  they  seemed  unlikely  to  have  a  history 
as  interesting  or  leave  memoirs  as  entertaining  as  those  of  the 
Courts  of  St.  James  or  of  Versailles,  which  educated  Americans 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

were  wont  to  read.  The  truth  was  that  the  higher  education  to 
which  I  have  alluded  to  was  defective  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the 
United  States  simply  because  that  history  during  the  first  half  of 
the  nineteenth  century  had  neither  audience  nor  demand  either  at 
home  or  abroad.  Here  and  there  a  state  historical  society,  local 
antiquarians  or  the  descendants  of  some  of  the  great  men  who 
fought  in  the  Revolution  and  made  the  Constitution,  collected  ma- 
terial, gathered  traditions  or  edited  letters  and  memoirs,  but  these 
efforts  were  commonly  regarded  as  amiable  idiosyncrasies,  quite 
harmless  but  not  designed  for  general  use.  Nothing  indeed  illus- 
trates better  this  attitude  of  mind  toward  American  history  at  that 
time  than  that  Prescott  and  Motley  devoted  their  brilliant  talents 
to  Spain  and  Holland  at  a  period  which  had  no  connection,  or  at 
best  a  very  slight  one,  with  the  vast  region  which  was  one  day  to 
be  the  United  States.  The  fact  was  that  educated  people  did  not 
think,  as  a  rule,  that  the  United  States  had  any  history  worth  con- 
sideration, just  as  they  likewise  thought  that  while  we  undoubtedly 
had  public  men  they  were  not  to  be  seriously  considered  as  states- 
men in  the  sense  of  European  ministers  or  English  Parliamentary 
leaders.  They  were  unable  to  realize  that  the  organization  of  a 
nation  and  the  development  of  a  new  country  by  a  great  democracy 
demanded  power,  ability  and  statesmanship  of  a  very  high  and 
strong  variety.  It  was  all  different,  it  was  new,  and  it  was  not 
therefore  really  important  tried  by  the  fashions  of  the  Old  World. 
The  colonial  habit  of  mind  died  hard  in  regard  to  American  his- 
tory, as  it  did  in  many  other  ways. 

Yet  even  then  there  were  men  who  saw  what  a  field  was  open 
to  the  historian  in  the  story  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  colonies 
out  of  which  the  United  States  had  been  developed.  Richard 
Hildreth,  working  only  on  public  documents,  newspapers,  printed 
books  and  pamphlets  and  Congressional  debates,  produced  his  his- 
tory of  the  United  States  from  the  earliest  settlements  down  to  his 
own  time.  The  volumes  are  dry,  without  literary  quality  or  charm, 
almost  unreadable  indeed  as  literature,  and  yet  Hildreth's  work, 
considering  his  material,  is  very  accurate  and  remains  as  a  com- 
prehensive book  of  reference  more  valuable  than  many  which 
have  succeeded  it.  Mr.  Bancroft  attained  to  much  wider  success 
and  to  greater  fame.  He  had  the  advantage  of  an  unoccupied  field 
to  cultivate  and  a  smaller  world  to  appeal  to,  so  that  his  labors 
achieved   a    success    impossible    now    to    much    better    work.     He 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

brought  to  this  task  the  best  education  and  training  which  the  uni- 
versities of  the  United  States  and  Germany  could  afford,  a  keen 
mind,  vigorous  abilities,  an  intense  love  of  country  and  an  unwear- 
ied industry.  But  withal  his  history  is  diffuse;  there  is  an  inor- 
dinate space  given  to  the  affairs  of  contemporary  Europe,  and  in 
the  earliest  edition  there  was  some  rather  turgid  writing  in  praise 
of  the  principles  of  democracy  and  the  rights  of  man,  as  expounded 
by  democracy,  and  the  rights  of  man,  as  expounded  by  Rousseau 
and  Jefferson.  But  Mr.  Bancroft  rendered,  nevertheless,  an  in- 
calculable service  to  American  history  by  the  vast  mass  of  original 
matter  which  he  brought  to  light  and  use  and  by  the  manner  in 
which  he  gave  unity  and  coordination  to  the  history  of  the  colonies. 
So  wide  were  his  researches  and  so  extensive  was  his  material  that 
even  his  long  and  industrious  life  did  not  enable  him  to  get  beyond 
the  period  of  the  Confederation.  To  the  same  time  we  owe  Mr. 
Palfrey's  history  of  New  England,  a  work  of  the  highest  and  most 
admirable  scholarship,  of  the  best  type  of  historical  work,  but  some- 
what dry  in  narration  and  necessarily  covering  only  one  group  of 
the  colonies  which  were  to  become  the  future  United  States. 

In  Francis  Parkman,  of  a  later  generation  than  Bancroft  or 
Palfrey.  American  literature  found  its  first  really  great  historian, 
one  fairly  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  small  group  where  Thucydides, 
Tacitus,  and  Gibbon  stand  apart  as  the  great  and  hitherto  unrivaled 
exemplars.  Mr.  Parkman  not  only  had  untiring  industry  and  the 
capacity  for  sifting  evidence  and  marshaling  facts  drawn  in  many 
cases  from  the  dark  corners  of  forgotten  manuscripts,  but  he  pos- 
sessed also  the  power  of  compression,  the  reserved  but  vigorous 
style,  and  above  all  the  imagination,  which  enabled  him  to  make 
history  live  and  have  a  meaning,  without  which  life  and  meaning 
it  will  surely  die  and  be  buried  among  incoherent  animals  and  scien- 
tific catalogues  of  facts.  In  a  series  of  volumes  he  gradually  drew 
a  noble  picture  of  the  mighty  struggle  of  races  which  ended  in  giv- 
ing North  America  to  the  English-speaking  people.  The  drama 
spread  over  a  continent,  the  actors  who  flitted  across  the  vast  stage 
were  Indians  and  Jesuits,  courtiers  of  Louis  XIV.,  and  sober  Puri- 
tans of  New  England,  French  adventurers  and  sturdy  Dutch  traders 
from  the  Mohawk  and  the  Hudson,  all  with  the  wilderness  as  a 
background  and  a  future  beyond  imagination  as  a  prize  for  which 
they  blindly  strove.  Parkman  made  the  world  comprehend  not 
only  that  American  history  was  important,  but  that  if  it  did  not 


I  N  T  11  O  D  U  C  T  I  O  N  xv 

have  the  precise  kind  of  picturesqueness  to  which  that  of  Europe 
had  accustomed  us,  it  had  a  picturesqueness  of  its  own,  a  light  and 
color  and  a  dramatic  force  not  less  impressive  because  they  differed 
in  kind  from  what  had  gone  before. 

Parkman  began  his  work  under  the  old  conditions  of  indiffer- 
ence and  inattention.  When  he  brought  his  brilliant  volumes  to 
an  end  those  conditions  had  utterly  and  entirely  changed.  The 
strong  Departments  of  American  History  which  have  grown  up  at 
some  of  our  leading  universities  in  the  last  thirty  years  of  the  cen- 
tury is  merely  a  sign  of  the  complete  alteration  in  opinion  and  feel- 
ing which  had  taken  place  not  only  in  the  universities  and  in  the 
schools,  but  in  the  public  mind  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War. 
Nothing  in  our  earlier  days,  for  example,  showed  more  conclusively 
the  national  indifference  to  the  past  than  the  reckless  destruction 
of  landmarks  and  historic  buildings.  Now  every  effort  is  made  to 
preserve  all  that  remains  which  gives  to  past  events  a  local  habita- 
tion. Americans  have  learned,  too  late  unfortunately  in  many  in- 
stances, that  the  buildings  and  streets,  the  forests  and  the  fields, 
which  have  been  the  scenes  of  memorable  events,  have  not  only  in- 
estimable worth  historically  and  sentimentally,  but  that  they  are 
also  pecuniarily  valuable,  to  take  a  highly  practical  view,  to  any 
community  lucky  enough  to  possess  them. 

In  the  same  way  books  ranging  from  the  most  extensive 
histories  to  antiquarian  monographs,  rich  in  minute  learning 
upon  some  single  incident,  have  multiplied  almost  beyond 
belief.  Biographies,  compilations  of  essays  by  specialists,  gen- 
eral histories  and  manuals  of  all  sorts  have  been  dupli- 
cated and  reduplicated  until  we  seem  in  danger  almost  of  losing 
sight  of  the  city  on  account  of  the  number  of  houses  which  cut  off 
our  view.  The  whole  of  our  history,  from  the  first  voyage  of  Co- 
lumbus to  the  last  administration  at  Washington,  has  been  exam- 
ined and  written  about  in  some  fashion.  In  the  old  days  the  period 
between  the  landings  at  Plymouth  and  Jamestown  and  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  and  that  which  stretched  forward  from  the 
surrender  at  Yorktown  might  have  been  labeled,  like  portions  of 
the  maps  so  familiar  a  generation  ago.  the  "  Great  American 
Desert."  And  people  dwelt  contented  with  their  "  Desert  "  and 
their  ignorance.  But  the  settlements  have  spread  and,  as  they 
spread,  have  subdued  and  conquered.  "  The  Great  American 
Desert"  is  no  more;  irrigation  threatens  its  last  stronghold,  and 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

the  unopened  tracts  of  the  history  of  the  United  States  have  all 
been  roamed  over  and  explored.  Most  of  the  exploration  and 
examination  has  resulted  merely  in  what  is  so  dear  to  the  purely 
scientific  historian,  vast  masses  of  catalogued  facts  where  literature 
is  excluded,  and  one  fact  is  just  as  good  and  important  as  any 
other,  simply  because  it  is  a  fact.  These  heaps  of  information, 
some  of  it  valueless,  much  of  it  undigested,  still  only  partly  as- 
sorted, are  the  necessary  conditions  for  real  history  written  by  one 
capable  and  understanding  man  as  distinct  from  the  huge  aggrega- 
tions of  special  articles,  immensely  valuable  as  books  of  reference, 
but  having  the  same  relation  to  history  in  its  highest  sense  that  the 
English  dictionary  bears  to  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  or  the  verse 
of  Milton.  Out  of  this  mass  of  material  thus  fervently 
and  indiscriminately  collected  in  the  last  forty  years  have  come 
two  histories  of  the  highest  type  in  scholarship,  research 
and  original  thought  —  Mr.  Henry  Adams's  "  History  of  the 
United  States  during  the  Administrations  of  Jefferson  and 
Madison,"  and  that  of  Mr.  James  Ford  Rhodes  covering  the  period 
subsequent  to  the  Compromise  of  1850.  In  addition  to  these  we 
have  many  excellent  biographies  and  monographs,  as  well  as  some 
admirable  presentations  and  brilliant  pictures  of  certain  epochs  and 
movements,  like  those  of  Mr.  Fiske  and  Mr.  McMaster,  which  are 
read  by  everyone  and  which  are  even  more  necessary  than  the 
highly  scientific  catalogues,  stripped  according  to  rule  of  all  beauty 
of  style  and  all  human  interest,  and  which  are  read  by  no  one.  To 
have  brought  so  much  pure  gold  as  this  out  of  the  incalculable  mass 
of  "  huddling  silver  little  worth  "  is  highly  creditable  to  American 
letters  and  American  history.  It  is  an  excellent  record,  not  to  be 
bettered  elsewhere  in  the  same  period  either  in  form  or  in  the  net 
contributing  to  human  knowledge,  and  to  the  comprehension  of 
the  meaning  of  man  upon  earth. 

Historians  and  learned  societies,  antiquarians  and  biographers, 
however,  cannot  create  history  unless  the  material  for  it  exists, 
nor  can  they  by  their  efforts  alone  develop  from  nothing  a  real 
interest  in  it  among  the  people  at  large.  The  popular  feeling  which 
arouses  the  interest  and  manifests  itself,  not  merely  in  the  sale 
of  histories  and  biographies,  but  by  the  enthusiasm  shown  in  the 
celebration  of  local  anniversaries,  in  numberless  addresses,  usually 
forgotten  at  once,  except  in  the  town  or  village  commemorated,  in 
the  passion  for  genealogies  and  family  histories,  in  the  preserva- 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

tion  and  erection  of  monuments,  springs  from  causes  deep  down 
among  the  people  themselves.  This  activity  and  this  earnestness 
in  all  things  pertaining  to  the  past  are  sound  and  wholesome,  and 
also  full  of  meaning.  It  is  a  commonplace  to  say  that  a  people 
which  cares  nothing  for  its  past  has  no  present  and  deserves  no 
future.  But  it  is  not  quite  so  obvious  that  widespread  interest  in 
history  is  a  proof  of  national  consciousness  and  of  the  abiding  sense 
that  a  nation  has  come  to  its  place  in  the  world. 

While  we  looked  to  Europe  for  all  our  inspiration  in  art  and 
letters,  in  thought  and  in  politics,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
we  should  consider  our  own  doings  of  much  consequence  or  worthy 
of  a  serious  place  in  history.  Nor  were  those  doings  in  themselves 
of  much  importance,  for  colonies  are  mere  appendages,  and  what 
chiefly  concerns  mankind  is  the  tree,  not  the  dependent  shoots 
which  push  up  from  spreading  roots.  The  history  of  the  American 
colonies  intrinsically  was  not  very  important  nor,  apart  from  a  cer- 
tain air  of  adventure  and  rude  picturesqueness,  very  generally 
interesting.  But  when  the  colonies  became  an  independent  state 
the  case  altered  at  once.  It  then  became  highly  important  to  know 
and  understand  the  origin  and  the  past  of  the  new  nation  in  all  its 
details.  The  ways  of  life,  the  habits  and  customs,  of  the  tribes 
which  wandered  in  the  forests  of  Scandinavia  and  Germany  are  not 
in  themselves  very  valuable,  and  are  certainly  not  entertaining.  But 
research  exhausts  itself,  and  wisely,  too,  in  the  effort  to  find  the 
minutest  facts  which  shall  throw  light  upon  the  origin  and  history 
of  the  people  from  whom  have  come  not  only  the  dominant  races 
of  Western  Europe,  but  the  Western  civilization  which  has  crossed 
oceans  and  subjugated  continents.  To  take  another  example,  the 
island  of  Jamaica,  now  and  always  a  dependent  colony,  is  his- 
torically negligible,  but  the  little  State  of  Rhode  Island  deserves  the 
careful  attention  of  the  historian  because  of  her  part  and  influence 
in  founding,  making  and  guiding  a  nation. 

Many  years  passed  before  we  emerged  wholly  from  the  co- 
lonial condition.  Long  after  we  had  become  independent  politi- 
cally, the  old  colonial  habits  of  thought,  as  strong  as  they  were 
impalpable,  clung  fast  about  us.  Only  step  by  step  did  we  shake 
off  the  provincial  spirit  and  rid  ourselves  of  the  bated  breath  of  the 
colonist.  We  did  not  come  to  a  full  national  consciousness  until 
we  had  passed  through  the  awful  trial  of  the  Civil  War.  Then 
we  realized  what  we  were,  and  the  trembling  deference  to  foreign 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

opinion,  the  sensitive  outcry  against  foreign  criticism,  as  well  as  the 
uneasy  self-assertion  and  boasting  which  accompanied  them,  fell 
from  us  as  the  burden  fell  from  the  shoulders  of  Christian.  There 
was  still  much  to  do,  but  the  old  colonial  habit  of  mind  was  shat- 
tered beyond  recovery.  It  lingered  on  here  and  there ;  it  dies  hard, 
but  it  is  dying,  and  now  is  nearly  dead. 

With  the  coming  of  a  true  national  consciousness  came  the 
interest  in  the  past  and  in  history.  It  was  apparent  that  the  United 
States  was  one  of  the  most  considerable  facts  of  the  age  when  its 
consolidation  had  once  been  effected  and  all  peril  of  dissolution  had 
departed  with  the  crushing  out  of  the  powers  which  aimed  at  sepa- 
ration. Anything  which  helped  to  explain  this  great  fact  became, 
therefore,  of  intense  interest.  As  the  years  passed  on  the  fact  has 
grown  larger.  In  due  time  a  not  very  serious  war  revealed  the 
fact  to  the  world,  and  it  appeared  that  this  fact  known  as  the  United 
States  had,  and  was  destined  to  have,  a  strong  and  increasing  in- 
fluence upon  all  the  other  facts  generally  spoken  of  as  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  Thus  did  it  become  more  than  ever  obvious  that  the 
explanation  of  the  United  States  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
past  four  centuries  was  worthy  of  the  best  efforts  of  the  historian. 
The  pride  in  what  the  country  is  spurs  men  on  to  pride  in  all  who 
shared  in  making  the  nation.  From  the  abortive  attempts  of  the 
earliest  adventurers,  from  the  feeble  settlements  clinging  to  the 
Atlantic  seaboard,  through  the  confused  and  seemingly  petty  his- 
tory of  the  colonies,  and  of  the  scattered  people  and  small  states 
struggling  out  of  revolution  and  dissension  to  a  larger  national  life, 
onward,  to  those  who  saved  the  Union  from  disintegration,  and 
still  on  to  those  who  have  carried  her  power  forward  to  the  Pacific, 
and  from  first  to  last  made  a  great  nation  where  there  was  none 
before,  all  alike  have  come  to  possess  deep  meaning  and  impor- 
tance. Hence  the  rise  of  American  history,  and,  what  is  more 
important,  of  the  general  interest  in  that  history,  which  may  be 
trusted  to  separate  the  wheat  from  the  chaff,  and  give  us  not  only 
knowledge,  but  also  something  worthy  to  take  a  place  in  literature 
by  the  manner  in  which  the  knowledge  is  communicated  to  men. 

Indeed,  signs  are  not  wanting  that  the  inhabitants  of  Eng- 
land and  Europe  are  beginning  to  think  that  the  history  of  a  people 
who  have  made  a  great  and  powerful  nation  to  whom  the  future 
in  large  measure  belongs  is  worthy  of  consideration,  and  that  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  know  something  of  the  men  who  have  led  and 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

guided  that  people  in  the  past,  and  who  lead  and  guide  them  now. 
There  is  evident,  even  on  .the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  a  dawn- 
ing idea  that  this  knowledge  may  be  as  useful  and  even  as  illuminat- 
ing as  to  trace  the  fortunes  of  some  petty  and  wholly  effaced  Italian 
citv  despot  or  the  personal  intrigues  of  forgotten  courtiers. 


//.C.faCy~ 


fdLw<mjt*v    A?\    /wA^vi>v" 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 
ABORIGINAL  AMERICA 

SECTION  PAGE 

I.  Origin  of  the  First  Americans        ....       3 
II.  Indian  Characteristics  and  Religion         ...       8 

III.  Industries,  Life  and  Recreations  of  the  Indians      .     1 1 

IV.  Present  Condition  and  Future  Outlook         .         .16 


CHAPTER  II 

DISCOVERIES    AND    EXPLORATIONS.     1000-1606 

I.  Precursors  of  Columbus     .         .         .         .         .  19 

II.  The  Voyages  of  Columbus        .         .         .         .         .26 

III.  Spanish   Explorations 36 

IV.  Explorations  of  the  French     .         .         .         .         .46 
V.  Early  English  Attempts  at  Colonization         .         .51 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  PLANTING  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  COLONIES.     1606-1776 

I.  Virginia 56 

II.  Maryland 68 

III.  The  Carolinas 7$ 

IV.  Georgia 80 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  PLANTING  OF  THE  NORTHERN  COLONIES.    1620-1776 

I.  Plymouth 83 

II.  Massachusetts    Bay 86 

III.  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island      .         .         .         .91 

xxi 


xxii  CONTENTS 

SECTION 

IV.  New    Hampshire    and    Maine 
V.  The  New  England  Confederation 

VI.  New  York 

VII.  Delaware  and  New  Jersey 
VIII.  Pennsylvania  .  ... 


PAGE 

95 
96 

101 

107 

110 


CHAPTER  V 
COLONIAL   GOVERNMENTS.    1606-1776 


114 


CHAPTER  VI 

COLONIAL  LIFE  AND  INSTITUTIONS.     1606-1776 

I.  Population,    Races  and  Classes         .         .         .  .126 

II.  Industries,  Occupations  and  Professions         .  .  133 

III.  Education,  Literature  and  Printing         .         .  .  139 

IV.  Religion   and   Religious   Worship     .         .         .  .145 
V.  Means  of  Travel,  Social  Customs  and  Crimes  .   151 


CHAPTER  VII 

INTER-COLONIAL  WARS.     1689-1748 

I.  King  William's  War.     1689-1697    . 
II.  Queen  Anne's  War.     1702-1714 
III.  King  George's  War.     1744- 1748 


257 
160 
163 


CHAPTER  VIII 

FRENCH  AND   INDIAN   WAR.    1754-1763 

I.  The  Dispute      ...... 

II.  Preliminary  Operations 

III.  Resources  of  the  Contending  Belligerents 

IV.  Braddock's    Expedition     .... 
V.  Expulsion    of    the    Acadians 

VI.  English    Disasters    and    Failures 
VII.  The  Victories  of  Pitt        .... 
VIII.  The  Fall  of  Quebec        .... 


167 
170 

173 
176 
179 
182 
187 
193 


CONTENTS 


xxm 


CHAPTER  IX 
RUPTURE  WITH  THE  MOTHER  COUNTRY.    1763-1775 

SECTION  PAGE 

I.  Causes  of  the  Dispute 201 

II.  The    First    Continental    Congress        .        .        .  222 
III.  Lexington    and    Concord 225 


CHAPTER  X 

REVOLUTION   AND   INDEPENDENCE.    1775-1776 

I.  The   Second   Continental   Congress 
II.  Bunker   Hill   and   Boston         .... 
III.  The    Declaration    of    Independence 


.  229 
•  231 
.  236 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  WAR  IN  THE  MIDDLE  COLONIES.    1776-1778 

I.  Loss  of  the  Lower  Hudson 

II.  The  Retreat  Across  New  Jersey       .... 

III.  Burgoyne's  Invasion  and  Struggle  for  the  Upper 

Hudson         .         .         .         .         . 

IV.  Brandywine,  Germantown  and  Valley  Forge 
V.  Charles  Lee  and  the  Battle  of  Monmouth     . 

VI.  The  French  Alliance 


242 

244 

251 

257 
262 

265 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  WAR  IN  THE  SOUTHERN  COLONIES.    1778-1782 

I.  The  Georgia  Campaign 
II.  Treason  of  Benedict  Arnold 

III.  Recovery  of  the  Carolinas 

IV.  Yorktown      .... 
V.  General   Observations 


271 

275 
278 

283 
289 


xxiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XIII 
TRANSITION  FROM  COLONIES  TO  STATES.    1781-1789 

SECTION  PAGE 

I.  The  Articles  of  Confederation         ....  298 

II.  Failure  of  the   Confederation         ....  306 

III.  On  the  Verge  of  Anarchy 312 

CHAPTER  XIV 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  REPUBLIC.    ^5-1789 

I.  Origin  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention         .         .  321 

II.  Framing  the  Constitution 324 

III.  The  Constitution  Ratified        .  334 

CHAPTER  XV 
THE  FIRST  EIGHT  YEARS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

I.  George  Washington  Elected  President     .         .         .  340 
II.  Organization  of  the  New  Government     .         .         .  344 
III.  Reelection  of  Washington;  Trouble  with  France 

and  England;  The  Whiskey  Rebellion     .        .  356 

CHAPTER  XVI 
THE  FEDERALIST   SUPREMACY.    1796-1801 

I.  John  Adams  Elected  President        .        .        .        .  370 

II.  The  French  Imbroglio 372 

III.  Federalist     Measures \  376 

CHAPTER  XVII 

JEFFERSONIAN  REPUBLICANISM.    1801-1809 

I.  Character  of  Jefferson 383 

II.  Republican  "  Reforms  " 388 

III.  Foreign  Relations  ;  War  with  Tripoli  ;  Purchase  of 

Louisiana 393 

IV.  The  Burr  Conspiracy;  Trouble  with  Great  Britain 

and    France 403 


CONTENTS  xxv 

CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  SECOND  WAR  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN.    1809-1815 

SECTION  PAGE 

I.  Preliminary  Incidents 413 

II.  Military  and  Naval  Opperations        ....  420 
III.  Observations  on  the  War 430 

CHAPTER  XIX 

THE  ERA  OF  GOOD  FEELING  AND  INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

1816-1824 

I.  The  Tariff  of  18 16,  and  the  Second  United  States 

Bank 434 

II.  Internal  Improvements,  Territorial  Expansion  and 

the    Monroe   Doctrine 441 

III.  The  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  Tariff  of  1824     .  450 

CHAPTER  XX 

RISE  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY.    1824-1828 

I.  The  Presidential  Contest  of  1824  .         .         .  459 

II.  The  Panama  Congress;  Controversy  with  Georgia; 

The  Tariff  of  1828 466 

CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   JACKSONIAN    EPOCH.    1828-1841. 

I.  Andrew   Jackson 477 

II.  The    Spoils    System;    Controversy    with    Georgia; 

Nullification  in  South  Carolina      .         .         .  482 

III.  Jackson's  War  Against  the  United  States  Bank        497 

IV.  Martin  Van  Buren 509 


UNITED  STATES 

LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 

George  Washington   (Photogravure)  Frontispiece 

FACING   PAGE 

Leif  Ericson  and  His  Adventurous  Crew         .         .         .20 

Destruction  of  the  Spanish  Armada 54 

Landing  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  at  Plymouth     ...     84 

Penn's  Second  Visit  to  His  Colony 110 

Quaker  Trial         148 

The  Expedition  Against  Louisburg 164 

Battle  of  Quebec .  194 

The  Boston  Massacre 216 

Benjamin   Franklin 236 

Lafayette's  First  Meeting  with  Washington     ....  268 

Signing  the  Preliminary  Treaty,   1782 288 

Alexander  Hamilton 322 

Washington  Takes  the  Oath  of  Office 344 

A  Reception  at  Martha  Washington's  House     .     .     .     372 

Thomas  Jefferson 386 

Duel  Between  Aaron  Burr  and  Alexander  Hamilton     .  402 

The    "United    States'' 422 

The  "  Holy  Alliance  Compact  " 446 

Henry  Clay 452 

John   C.    Calhoun 472 

Daniel  Webster  Delivers  his  Speech  against  Nullifica- 
tion              ...  490 

TEXT   MAPS 

PAGE 

Early    Voyages 27 

Route  of  Samuel  de  Champlain 49 

English   Charter  Grants 98 

xxvii 


xxviii  LIST     OF     ILLUSTRATIONS- 

page 

Siege  of  Louisburg 185 

Siege  of  Quebec 194 

Boston  and  Environs 232 

Loss  of  the  Lower  Hudson 245 

Struggle  for  the  Upper  Hudson 256 

The  Advance  on  Philadelphia.     1777 258 

Southern  Campaigns 280 

The  Siege  of  Yorktown 284 

The  Cession  of  Land.     1784- 1802 .     .316 

War  of  1812 421 

United  States.     1825 .     .    .  451 


THE  HISTORY  OF 
THE    UNITED    STATES 


HISTORY   OF 
THE   UNITED    STATES 

Chapter    I 

ABORIGINAL  AMERICA 

I 

ORIGIN   OF  THE   FIRST  AMERICANS 

"Many  an  aeon  moulded  earth  before  her  highest,  man,  was  born." — 

Tennyson 

THE  origin  of  the  race  which  first  peopled  America  is  ob- 
scure in  the  darkness  of  prehistoric  times,  that  is,  pre- 
historic in  America.  The  earliest  man  everywhere  was 
a  savage  and  has  left  few  records  of  his  life  save  in  the  imple- 
ments of  his  daily  use.  His  period  is  commonly  designated  as 
the  Palaeolithic  (Unground  Stone)  Age,  and  that  of  his  successors, 
the  Neolithic  (Ground  Stone).  The  resemblance  in  the  relics  of 
all  prehistoric  races  is  very  strong;  indeed,  the  resemblance  be- 
tween the  relics  of  the  remotest  tribes  and  the  races  of  to-day  is 
so  striking  that  an  expert  is  sometimes  puzzled  to  distinguish  an 
arrowhead  of  a  modern  Indian  from  one  used  by  prehistoric  man. 
In  spite  of  this,  however,  Humboldt  holds  that  the  monument 
methods  of  computing  time,  systems  of  cosmogony,  and  many 
myths  of  America  offer  analogies  with  the  ideas  of  eastern  Asia 
too  strong  to  admit  of  any  explanation  save  that  of  an  ancient 
connection.  The  natives  of  the  extreme  northwestern  part  of 
North  America  undoubtedly  belong  to  the  same  family  as  the 
natives  of  northeastern  Asia.  For  these  and  other  reasons  Hubert 
Howe  Bancroft,1  who  has  made  an  extended  study  of  the  Indians 
of  the  Pacific  coast,  inclines  to  the  view  that  America  was  peopled 
from  Asia.  He  acknowledges,  however,  that  the  migration  may 
have  been  in  the  opposite  direction,  Asia  being  peopled  by  a  race 
autocthonous  in  America.2 

1  Bancroft,  "  Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  16-19. 

2  A  notable  effort  has  recently  been  made  under  the  auspices  of  Morris  K. 
Jesup,  President  of  the  American  Museum  of  Natural  History,  to  settle  more 

3 


4  THE     UNITED     STATES 

Other  theories  have  been  advanced  of  racial  connection,  such 
as  that  the  aboriginals  of  America  were  of  Celtic,  Egyptian,  Phoe- 
nician, or  even  Jewish  origin.  But  all  of  these  belong  to  the 
realm  of  wild  speculation  or  pure  myth  along  with  the  lost  At- 
lantis, over  which  some  of  them  are  reputed  to  have  made  the 
migration.  The  only  conservative  and  defensible  position  is  one 
of  frank  ignorance.  The  thorough  ethnological  studies  now  being 
undertaken  may  in  the  future  throw  light  on  the  question,  but  it 
is  extremely  doubtful  whether  the  results  will  be  convincing.3 

The  theory  of  autocthonic  origin  is  deserving  of  more  re- 
spect. Certain  fossil  remains  have  been  discovered  which  seem 
to  give  it  at  least  a  shadow  of  support.  After  the  earthquakes  of 
1811-1812  a  fragment  of  a  human  bone  was  found  in  a  fissure 
near  Natchez,  Mississippi,  along  with  the  bones  of  a  mastodon 
and  other  extinct  animals.  In  1852  a  skeleton  was  dug  up  in 
New  Orleans  beneath  four  successive  buried  forests  of  cypress.4 
Similar  discoveries  have  been  made  in  the  shafts  of  mines  in 
California,  but  the  authenticity  of  none  of  these  is  beyond  dispute. 
But  if  this  is  the  oldest  continent,  it  certainly  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  man  first  made  his  appearance  here.  Aside  from 
the  evidence  just  mentioned,  there  is  abundant  proof  that  the 
continent  has  been  inhabited  a  long  time,  probably  several  thou- 
sand years. 

definitely  the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  American  Indians.  Mr.  Jesup,  in 
consultation  with  a  number  of  eminent  anthropologists,  came  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  only  satisfactory  way  to  discover  if  there  were  any  evidences 
of  contact  between  the  early  settlers  of  America  and  Asia  was  to  make  a 
thorough  investigation  of  the  oldest  remaining  tribes  of  both  countries.  With 
this  end  in  view  the  "Jesup  North  American  Expedition  of  the  American 
Museum  of  Natural  History "  was  organized  in  1897,  and  for  seven  years  it 
has  studied  the  characteristics,  customs,  traditions,  and  languages  of  the  Indian 
tribes  in  America,  from  the  Columbia  River  to  northern  Alaska,  and  in  Asia 
as  far  south  as  the  line  of  civilization.  By  studying  how  long  the  tribes  had 
been  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  what  changes  had  taken  place  in  the  tribal  physical 
characteristics,  and  what  relation  the  various  tribes  bore  to  one  another,  it  was 
possible  to  trace  the  relationship  between  the  Asiatic  and  American  tribes,  and 
probably  the  cause  of  emigration  in  prehistoric  times.  The  results  of  the  expe- 
dition point  to  the  existence  of  intimate  relationship  between  the  Asiatic  and 
American  Indians,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  members  of  the  expedition  is 
that  the  Indian  originated  in  America  and  spread  into  Asia. 

s  Farrand,  "  Basis  of  American  History,"  p.  87. 

4  Winsor,  "  The  Antiquity  of  Man  in  America  "  in  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and 
Critical  History,-'  vol.  i.  p.  389;  also  Haynes.  "Prehistoric  Archaeology  of 
North  America,"  vol.  i.  ch.  vi. 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  5 

Back  of  the  Indians  of  historic  times  were  the  Mound 
Builders.  The  theory  that  they  were  a  distinct  race  which  dis- 
appeared before  the  Indian  ever  came,  or  were  driven  out  by  him, 
is  no  longer  regarded  as  tenable.  The  Indian  is  now  regarded  as 
the  descendant  of  the  Mound  Builders  —  degenerate,  perhaps,  in 
some  respects.5  The  mounds,  which  constitute  the  only  monu- 
ments of  the  existence  of  this  race,  are  scattered  throughout  the 
Ohio  and  Mississippi  valleys  and  are  of  varying  size  and  shape. 
The  purpose  of  some  of  them  is  beyond  conjecture;  others  have 
been  designated  as  mounds  of  observation,  worship,  or  sepulture. 
In  shape  they  are  of  four  distinct  classes,  conical,  elongate,  pyra- 
midal, and  effigial.  The  first  were  used  for  sepulture.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  second,  which  consist  of  walls  about  four  feet  high, 
ten  to  twenty  broad,  and  fifty  to  nine  hundred  long,  is  unknown. 
The  pyramidal  probably  were  used  for  worship,  since  mounds  of 
similar  construction  have  been  found  in  Mexico  with  temples  on 
them.  The  "  Serpent  Mound "  in  Adams  County,  Ohio,  is  a 
good  specimen  of  the  last  class.  Some  occur  in  lowlands,  indi- 
cating that  they  probably  were  used  for  refuge  from  high  water. 
The  defensive  character  of  others  is  apparent,  such  as  the  walls  of 
earth  and  stone  constructed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  reveal  evidence 
of  no  little  military  skill. 

The  twenty  miles  of  embankment  at  the  mouth  of  the  Scioto 
may  have  belonged  to  this  class,  but  other  similar  works  are  diffi- 
cult to  explain.  Sometimes  graded  roads  lead  from  terrace  to 
terrace,  possibly  to  secure  access  to  streams ;  others  "  begin  no- 
where and  lead  nowhere."  In  places  there  are  perfect  squares,  in 
others,  perfect  circles,  some  of  them  a  mile  in  circuit.  In  differ- 
ent parts  of  Ohio  is  found  the  curious  arrangement  of  a  square 
with  two  circles.  In  all  cases  the  dimensions  are  the  same,  each 
side  of  the  square  measuring  one  thousand  and  eighty  feet  and 
the  circles  seventeen  hundred  and  eight  hundred  feet  in  circum- 
ference. Sometimes  moats  are  found  inside  these  walls.  Rings 
of  from  five  to  fifteen  feet  in  diameter  have  been  denominated 
"  hut  rings."  The  square  house  site  may  be  found  in  Arkansas. 
In  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  appear  mounds  from  four  to  six  feet 
high,  which  evidently  were  intended  to  represent  animals  (the  ele- 
phant for  one),  birds,  fishes  and  implements.     So-called  "garden 

D  Farrand,  "  Basis  of  American  History,"  p.  73. 


6  THE     UNITED     STATES 

mounds,"  which  are  but  six  or  eight  inches  high,  are  found  in 
Michigan  and  Wisconsin. 

Excavations  have  brought  to  light  many  implements  of  war 
and  the  chase,  fine  specimens  of  pottery  and  other  implements  of 
domestic  life.  Pipes  may  be  found  in  one,  arrow-heads  in  another 
and  copper  tools  in  a  third.  The  last  named  relics  indicate  that 
they  were  approaching  the  Metal  Age,  though  they  still  belonged 
to  the  Stone  Age.  There  is  no  evidence  that  metals  were  ever 
smelted  above  Mexico.  In  the  north  it  was  simply  beaten  out, 
but  a  great  deal  was  done  in  this  way.  A  mass  of  copper  weighing 
six  tons,  raised  upon  a  scaffold  five  feet  high,  probably  in  prepara- 
tion for  removal,  was  found  in  the  Minesota  Mine  eighteen  feet 
below  the  surface.  So  long  ago  was  the  mining  done  that  even 
the  tradition  of  it  was  lost  among  the  Indians  whom  the  Europeans 
found  there.6 

The  number  and  extent  of  the  mounds  are  conclusive  proof 
that  the  people  who  made  them  were  numerous  and  industrious. 
Did  they  abandon  them  and  move  to  the  far  southwest,  or  were 
they  driven  out  by  a  hostile  foe,  or  did  they  remain  there  and  de- 
generate into  the  savages  of  historic  times?  One  does  not  like  to 
take  the  last  alternative,  yet  he  can  adduce  no  conclusive  proof  for 
either  of  the  others.  This  much  is  certain,  however,  that  the  cul- 
ture of  the  Mound  Builders  was  improved  upon  in  Mexico,  and  in 
Central  and  South  America.7 

An  account  of  the  Indians  of  Mexico  does  not  properly  belong 
to  a  history  of  the  United  States,  but  the  temptation  to  say  a  word 
concerning  them  as  affording  a  high  type  of  Indian  civilization 
is  irresistible.  However,  not  all  the  Indians  of  Mexico  were 
of  this  kind ;  all  types  were  found  there,  from  the  beastly  Yuman 
stock  of  Lower  California  to  the  Aztecs  of  the  plateau.  Accord- 
ing to  tradition  the  best  Mexican  stock  had  migrated  from  the 
north.  Of  these  the  Aztecs  may  be  taken  as  a  type,  though  the 
Tarascos  and  the  Tapotecs  were  not  far  behind  them,  and  the  Mayas 
were,  in  some  respects,  their  superiors. 

The  traditional  history  of  the  Aztecs,  who  centered  about  the 

6  Farrand,  "  Basis  of  American  History,"  ch.  v. 

7  The  most  valuable  literature  on  the  subject  of  the  Indian  mounds  is  to 
be  found  in  the  "  Annual  Reports  "  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution.  Hardly  a 
year  has  passed  since  1861  but  these  "  Reports  "  have  had  in  them  contributions 
on  the  subject.  The  "Annual  Reports  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Ethnology"  like- 
wise frequently  contain  valuable  papers  on  the  Indian  races  and  related  subjects. 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  7 

City  of  Mexico  dates  back  to  the  fifth  century.  Some  stone  im- 
plements were  still  used  by  them,  but  they  were,  nevertheless,  in 
the  metal-agricultural  age.  They  reckoned  descent  in  the  male 
line,  though  land  was  still  held  in  common  and  marriage  was 
regulated  by  gentile  law.  The  achievements  in  architecture  and 
public  works  were  really  marvelous,  and  revealed  evidence  of 
great  engineering  skill.  Their  cities  were  adorned  with  temples, 
but  they  practiced  human  sacrifice  in  a  most  revolting  manner. 
Schools  were  maintained  where  the  boys  were  taught  history,  re- 
ligion and  military  science,  while  the  girls  learned  domestic  science 
and  textile  work.  Much  attention  was  given  to  the  moral  training 
of  both  sexes  —  the  teachers  were  priests  and  priestesses  —  but 
one  can  not  commend  the  basis  of  instruction,  which  was  terror, 
not  respect  or  love.  Their  writing  was  hieroglyphic,  but  far  in- 
ferior to  that  of  the  Egyptians.  They  had  preserved  a  great 
number  of  manuscripts,  but  the  Spaniards  destroyed  the  most  of 
them.8  In  Central  and  South  America  were  several  tribes  of 
equal,  if  not  higher,  attainments,  especially  the  Incas  in  Peru. 
The  civilization  of  the  Incas,  in  fact,  represented  the  highest  de- 
velopment among  the  native  races  of  America.9 

The  more  exact  method  of  classifying  the  Indians  is  by  their 
physical  and  lingual  characteristics.  Most  writers,  however,  fol- 
lowing the  lines  of  least  resistance,  classify  them  according  to  their 
culture  and  geographical  location.  A  very  satisfactory  classifica- 
tion on  the  basis  of  language  has  been  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Eth- 
nology in  Washington.  It  recognizes  fifty-nine  independent 
families  north  of  Mexico,  the  most  important  of  which  are  the 
Algonquian,  Athapascan,  Eskimauan,  Iroquoian,  Muskhogean,  and 
Siouan.10 

A  study  of  a  map  showing  the  location  of  the  various  fami- 
lies raises  some  interesting  questions.  While  it  indicates  compara- 
tive stability  of  location  at  the  time  when  the  Europeans  appeared, 
it  speaks  in  unmistakable  terms  of  great  migrations  in  earlier 
times.  One  cannot  but  compare  them  with  the  great  migrations 
of  the  time  when  the  barbarians  were  sweeping  over  Europe. 
There  is  an  Athapascan  stock  in  the  far  northwest  between  Hud- 

8  Prescott,  "Conquest  of  Mexico"   (ed.  Kirk),  vol.  i.  pp.  72,  97. 

9  Sir  C.  R.  Markham,  "  The  Inca  Civilization  in  Peru,"  in  Winsor,  "  Narra- 
tive and  Critical  History,"  vol.  i.  p.  209. 

10  Farrand,  "  Basis  of  American  History,"  pp.  92-96. 


8  THE     UNITED     STATES 

son  Bay  and  the  Pacific,  and  another  on  the  Mexican  border. 
So  long  ago  was  the  separation,  however,  that  their  dialects  and 
culture  reveal  few  things  in  common.  Some  of  the  other  widely 
scattered  races  have  more  in  common.  The  movement  of  the 
Algonquian  family  evidently  was  from  the  north  Atlantic  region 
westward  and  southward,  a  few  being  found  so  far  south  as 
South  Carolina.  The  Siouan  family  seems  to  have  moved  west- 
ward from  the  Carolinas  and  Virginia  through  Ohio,  where  they 
probably  came  in  conflict  with  the  Algonquian  and  Iroquoian.  This 
was  near  the  home  of  the  latter,  who  centered  about  Lake  Erie 
and  Lake  Ontario,  forming  the  famous  Five  Nations,  which  gave 
Hiawatha  to  romance.  Some  of  them  were  found  in  the  south- 
ern Appalachian  region.  The  best  known  tribes  of  the  Sioux 
found  by  Europeans  in  the  east  and  south  were  the  Catawba  of 
Carolina,  and  the  Biloxi  of  Mississippi.  Of  the  Algonquian  stock, 
Delaware,  Massachusetts,  Pequot,  Narraganset,  and  Shawnee,  who 
gave  Tecumseh  to  history,  are  familiar  names  of  the  colonial  era 
in  the  east;  also  the  Powhatan  confederacy  in  Virginia.  The 
Cheyenne,  Illinois,  Fox,  Kickapoo  and  Pottawattomie  belong 
farther  west.  The  Muskhogean  seem  to  have  remained  east  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  south  of  the  Cumberland.  The  well-known  tribes 
of  these  were  the  Alabama,  Chickasaw,  Choctaw,  Creek  and  Semi- 
nole. These,  with  the  Iroquoian  Cherokee,  constitute  the  civilized 
tribes  of  the  present-day  Oklahoma. 

II 

INDIAN    CHARACTERISTICS    AND    RELIGION 

Certain  physical  characteristics  are  common  to  the  Indians  of 
America,  at  least  when  we  omit  the  Aleuts  and  Eskimos,  though 
they  differ  among  themselves  as  much  as  the  people  of  Europe. 
Popularly  called  the  "  Red  Man,"  his  characteristic  color  is  in 
reality  brown  with  varying  tints,  from  comparatively  dark  to  light 
yellow.  "  Red  Indian  "  probably  arose  from  the  sight  of  Indians 
painted  red  when  on  the  war-path,  as  few  really  had  the  reddish 
tint.  The  hair  is  raven  black,  glossy  and  nearly  always  straight, 
and  baldness  is  uncommon,  as  is  also  the  presence  of  hair  on  the 
face.  A  common  practice  was  to  pluck  the  beard  to  prevent  its 
growth.     One  of  the  most  marked  characteristics  of  the  Indian 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  9 

is  the  high  cheek  bone,  together  with  a  large  nose,  generally  aqui- 
line. In  some  tribes  the  shape  of  the  forehead  was  influenced 
by  the  custom  of  head-flattening.  In  stature  he  stood  from  five 
and  a  half  to  six  feet,  though  many  went  beyond  this  —  the  Pata- 
gonians  being  reputed  the  tallest  race  in  the  world.  The  females 
were  slightly  under-sized  and  showed  a  tendency  toward  obesity. 

In  physical  endurance  the  Indians  were  inferior  to  both  the 
white  man  and  the  negro.  True  in  all  climes,  this  was  especially 
so  in  the  tropics,  though  by  exception  the  Florida  Indians  were 
noted  for  their  fine  physical  qualities.  When  parceled  out  as 
slaves  by  the  Spanish  in  the  West  Indies  and  South  America  and 
forced  to  labor,  they  speedily  perished  and  whole  tribes  became 
extinct.  In  mental  capacity  they  were  superior  to  the  negro,  but 
somewhat  inferior  to  the  white  man  in  most  things;  even  in  fields 
particularly  his  own,  knowledge  of  the  forests  and  the  habits  of 
its  denizens,  the  Indian  often  had  to  confess  the  superior  skill  of 
the  whites. 

A  child  of  the  forest  and  the  plain,  the  "  Red  Man  "  felt  his 
kinship  with  nature  and  bowed  to  her  as  his  god.11  He  dwelt  in  a 
land  of  spirits  and  dreamed  of  "  ampler  hunting-grounds  beyond 
the  night,"  where  his  spirit  would  join  in  the  chase  with  those 
of  his  companions  gone  before.  The  Great  Spirit  was  worshiped, 
generally  in  the  person  of  the  sun.  This  was  especially  true  in 
Mexico  and  South  America.  But  all  nature  about  the  Indian  was 
peopled  with  spirits,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  he  ever  venerated  one 
great  overruling  spirit  until  taught  by  the  white  man.  On  the 
plains  the  spirit-buffalo  was  of  prime  importance;  in  agricultural 
realms,  the  rain-god.  There  were  evil  spirits  as  well  as  good,  both 
of  which  he  implored,  and  appeased  the  former  with  charms,  sacri- 
fices and  fastings.12  Even  the  conception  of  good  and  bad  spirits 
shows  the  influences  of  the  forces  of  nature.  The  Cherokees,  for 
example,  looked  to  the  Sunland,  or  east,  for  the  red  gods  of  vic- 
tory; out  of  the  cold  north  came  the  blue  spirit  of  disaster. 
Human  sacrifices  were  not  common  north  of  Mexico,  though  some 
tribes  made  a  feast  of  the  slain  after  a  notable  victory.  Though 
the  Indian  worshiped  the  myriad  spirits  of  nature,  he  seldom 
bowed  to  gods  of  wood  and  stone  made  with  his  own  hand.  Some 
tribes,  however,  had  palladiums  which  were  the  centers  of  great 

11  Grinnell,  "  The  Story  of  the  Indian,"  p.   163. 

12  Frederick  Starr,  "  The  American  Indian,"  p.  80. 


10  THE     UNITED     STATES 

ceremonials  and  with  which  their  prosperity  was  inseparably  bound 
up.  The  Indian  religion  was  peculiar  in  that  the  idea  of  personal 
sin  was  almost  wholly  absent.  If  the  god  had  been  offended,  the 
tribe,  not  an  individual,  was  guilty,  and  entrance  to  the  happy 
hunting  ground  did  not  depend  upon  an  upright  life  in  this  world. 
The  Indian  often  tortured  himself,  but  this  was  to  win  the  favor  of 
his  god,  not  to  appease  him.  Each  tribe  had  a  reputed  founder 
whose  good-will  must  always  be  kept.  Often  he  was  said  to  have 
been  a  great  trickster,  sometimes  an  anthropomorphic  animal. 
The  prophet  or  priest  was  also  a  medicine  man,  who  effected  his 
cures  by  charms  and  incantations.  From  the  ghost  dance,  which 
originated  in  Nevada  about  twenty  years  ago,  and  took  the  place 
of  the  plains  ceremonials,  we  learn  that  the  religion  of  a  tribe  was 
not  cast  in  a  fixed  mold,  but  was  subject  to  decay  or  to  develop- 
ment.13 

Burial  customs  varied  in  detail,  but  inhumation  was  commonly 
practiced.  The  Hurons  exposed  their  dead  on  scaffolds  for  a  sea- 
son, until  the  "  Feast  of  the  Dead."  and  then  gathered  their  bones 
into  a  common  sepulcher.  Those  who  buried  their  dead  often 
placed  them  in  a  sitting  posture,  facing  the  east,  and  put  into  the 
grave  the  implements  of  war  and  the  chase  belonging  to  the  de- 
ceased and  food  enough  for  the  journey  of  one  of  his  spirits  to 
the  happy  hunting  ground.  Another  spirit,  for  each  individual 
was  believed  to  have  several,  haunted  the  body  and  the  village.14 

North  of  New  Mexico  on  the  plains  and  in  the  east,  the  pre- 
vailing plan  for  a  house  or  wigwam,  as  it  was  called,  was  coni- 
cal. It  was  constructed  by  setting  several  poles  in  the  ground  and 
bringing  them  together  at  the  top.  Splits,  poles,  bark,  brush  and 
reeds  were  used  for  covering.  Smoke  escaped  through  a  hole  at 
the  top.  The  wigwams  were  grouped  in  villages  and  sometimes 
they  were  surrounded  by  palisades.  The  "  long  houses  "  of  the 
Iroquois,  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  feet  long,  were  well  con- 
structed with  a  stout  framework.  Small  compartments  provided 
with  sleeping  bunks  ranged  around  the  walls.  Great  communal 
houses  were  found  in  the  Columbia  region.  In  California  the  dug- 
out and  dome-shaped  houses  built  of  clay,  and  entered  from  the 
top,  were  the  general  type.     In  New  Mexico  the  Spaniards  found 

13  Starr.  "First  Steps  in  Human  Progress."  pp.  205-215. 

14  Farrand,   "  Basis    of   American    History,"    p.    251  ;    Brinton.    "  The    Myths 
of  the  New  World,"  p.  60. 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  11 

aggregations  of  continuous  rooms  which  they  called  "  pueblos," 
and  which  were  several  storeys  high.  Entrance  was  made  through 
the  flat  roofs  by  means  of  ladders,  the  walls  often  being  made 
without  gates  for  the  sake  of  protection.  For  the  same  reason  the 
so-called  "  cliff-dwellers  "  constructed  their  rooms  on  the  sides  of 
cliffs  difficult  of  access.15 

Ill 

INDUSTRIES,    LIFE,    AND    RECREATIONS    OF   THE   INDIANS 

Aside  from  war,  the  pursuits  of  the  Indian  depended  largely 
on  his  locality  and  environment.  Most  of  the  tribes  depended 
mainly  on  agriculture  for  their  subsistence.  Especially  was  this 
true  on  the  Atlantic  slope,  while  hunting  was  more  common  in 
the  north  and  west.  Corn  stood  first  in  importance  among  the 
agricultural  products,  but  vegetables  were  not  unknown.  The 
products  of  the  farm  were  supplemented  by  hunting  and  fishing, 
and  by  gathering  the  edible  products  of  the  forest.  The  Indians 
of  the  plains  lived  almost  wholly  by  the  chase.  Strange  to  say, 
they  would  not  eat  birds  or  fish,  but  sometimes  partook  of  the  flesh 
of  horses  and  dogs,  along  with  dried  grasshoppers,  snakes  and 
other  like  delicacies.  The  "  Digger  "  Indian  of  the  Columbia  re- 
gion lived  mainly  upon  roots,  and  the  acorn  was  a  staple  food  in 
California.16  Since  the  coming  of  the  Spanish  the  Navajos  have 
depended  mainly  on  their  herds  of  sheep  and  goats,  but  often  have 
raised  them  only  to  see  them  driven  away  by  the  predatory 
Apaches.  The  horse  and  dog  were  the  domestic  animals  of  com- 
mon use.  The  Indian  pony  of  to-day  is  descended  from  a  stock 
brought  by  the  Spanish,  though  the  Indian  of  the  plains  claims  to 
have  had  horses  before  the  Spanish  ever  came. 

The  prevailing  dress  was  made  of  skins,  heavy  in  the  cold 
regions  for  warmth  and  decreasing  in  weight  and  importance  to- 
ward the  south.  The  men  wore  a  skirt,  a  breech-clout,  leggings, 
and  moccasins.  The  women  wore  a  tunic  with  short  sleeves,  a 
sort  of  apron,  a  belt,  leggings  and  moccasins.  When  the  weather 
permitted  the  men  stripped  to  the  breech-clout.  Their  head-dress, 
especially  in  the  war  dance,  was  very  ornate,  consisting  of  a  sort 

15  Read  Morgan,  "  Houses  and  House-life  of  the  American  Aborigines." 
10  Read  Wilson,  "  Prehistoric  Man,"  chs.  ii.-iii. 


12  THE     UNITED     STATES 

of  cap  covered  with  long  feathers,  with  a  long  streamer  of  feath- 
ers hanging  down  the  back.  The  children  wore  no  clothing  in 
warm  weather.  The  age  of  ten  was  a  sort  of  "  coming  out  " 
period  for  the  boys,  when  they  assumed  the  breech-clout  and  were 
allowed  to  accompany  their  elders  in  the  chase  or  war.  The  hair 
was  worn  long  and  on  the  plains  it  was  plaited  in  two  braids  and 
hung  down  on  each  side;  in  the  east  the  head  was  shaved  except 
for  a  crest  along  the  top,  which  was  left  for  a  scalp-lock.  IirKvar 
the  victor  cut  this  from  the  head  of  his  slain  foe  and  hung  it  to 
his  belt  as  a  trophy.  Paint  was  used  freely  before  going  on  the 
warpath.  Tattooing  was  practiced  to  some  extent  in  various 
tribes.  Necklaces,  of  shells,  turquoise,  and  pearls,  and  nose  and 
ear  pendants  were  in  common  use.17 

The  languages  of  the  Indians  were  polysynthetic :  that  is, 
"  much  putting  together,"  though  some  tribes  showed  a  different 
class.  Some  of  the  dialects  were  pleasing  to  the  ear,  while  others 
were  harsh  and  grating.  North  of  Mexico  there  was  no  written 
language  except  a  rude  sort  of  picture-writing;  consequently  the 
Indians  have  left  no  literature.  John  Eliot,  missionary  to  the  In- 
dians of  Massachusetts,  succeeded  in  reducing  the  Algonquin 
tongue  to  writing  and  translated  the  Bible  into  it.  At  a  much  later 
period  (1824)  the  Cherokees  invented  a  sort  of  syllabic  system  of 
writing.  The  Indian  of  poetry  and  romance  is  credited  with  ex- 
pressing himself  in  language  of  poetic  beauty.  The  total  number 
of  languages  for  the  two  Americas  is  put  by  some  authorities  as 
high  as  760,  which  means  that  few  tribes  spoke  the  same  language. 
The  necessity  of  intercommunication,  however,  compelled  them  to 
know  something  of  the  language  of  their  neighbors.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  this,  resort  was  had  to  sign  language  —  the  bundle  of 
arrows  tied  with  a  snakeskin  and  sent  to  the  English  was  a  declara- 
tion of  war.  Treaties  were  recorded  by  means  of  wampum  belts. 
Time  was  reckoned  by  moons,  but  the  length  of  its  passage  was 
lost  in  the  haze  of  years. 

The  social  and  political  organization  was  based  upon  the  gen- 
tile or  clan  system.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  clan  is  an  enlarged 
family  or  the  family  a  new  formation  within  the  clan.  Descent 
was  reckoned  in  the  female  line  and  intermarriage  within  a  clan, 
several  of  which  made  a  tribe,  was  forbidden.     When  a  warrior 

17  See    Starr,  "  First  Steps  in  Human   Progress.'"  ch.   xiv. 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  13 

married  he  passed  over  to  his  wife's  clan  and  the  children  belonged 
to  her  clan.18  Some  argue  from  this  an  existing  or  previously 
existing  sexual  promiscuity,  the  children  being  assigned  to  the 
mother  because  their  paternity  was  uncertain.  This  reasoning, 
however,  is  unsafe,  for  examples  may  be  found  of  transition  from 
the  paternal  system  to  the  maternal,  such  as  among  the  Kwakiutl 
of  Vancouver  Island.  "  Blood  revenge  "  was  a  clan  matter,  the 
clan  demanding  satisfaction  for  the  loss  of  a  member.  When  mur- 
der was  committed  within  a  clan  by  one  of  its  members,  the  act 
was  either  overlooked,  as  to  kill  the  offender  would  only  be  a 
new  act  of  sacrilege,  or  he  was  first  expelled  and  then  hunted 
down.19 

The  principal  clan  officers  were  the  sachem,  the  leading  man 
in  times  of  peace,  and  the  chief  or  leader  in  war.  The  office  of 
sachem  was  loosely  hereditary  within  the  clan,  vacancies  being  filled 
by  election.  Immediate  blood-relations,  such  as  a  brother  or  a  sis- 
ter's son,  were  generally  chosen,  but  any  male  member  of  the  clan 
was  eligible,  and  he  could  be  deposed  for  cause.  Personal  fitness 
was  the  test  for  leadership  —  in  most  places  ability  to  lead  in  war, 
but  in  the  northwest,  wealth  and  social  rank.  The  number  of 
chiefs  varied :  among  the  Iroquois  there  was  one  to  every  seventy- 
five  or  one  hundred  persons.  The  Indians  were  essentially  demo- 
cratic, equality  and  independence  being  at  the  basis  of  their  politi- 
cal institutions,  and  hence  the  choice  of  chiefs,  like  that  of  sachems, 
belonged  to  the  clan.  In  a  few  cases,  perhaps,  the  term  king  was 
not  inaptly  applied,  as  in  the  case  of  Philip,  commonly  called  King 
of  the  Wampanoags,  but  in  general  the  title  was  a  misnomer.  The 
chief's  preeminence  depended  mainly  on  the  condition  of  war,  but 
he  was  also  a  member  ex-officio  of  the  tribal  council.  This  was 
natural,  however,  since  the  principal  matters  of  discussion  in  the 
council  related  to  war  and  foreign  relations.  In  these  councils  the 
women  were  allowed  to  be  heard  by  proxy. 

Strangely  enough,  among  the  Iroquois  the  women  had  the 
sole  right  to  declare  war.  They  also  had  the  right  of  adoption ; 
that  is,  to  decide  the  fate  of  captives  in  war.  Female  chiefs  were 
met  with  a  few  times  by  Europeans,  but  usually  woman  held 
a  position  popularly  regarded  as  inferior.  The  task  of  tilling  the 
soil  fell  to  her  lot,  partly  because  the  braves  were  engaged  in  the 

18  Starr,  "  First  Steps   in  Human   Progress,"  pp.   196-203. 

19  Farrand,  "  Basis  of  American  History,"  p.  198  et  seq. 


14  THE     UNITED     STATES 

more  arduous  duties  of  war  and  the  chase,  partly  because  they  con- 
sidered it  beneath  their  dignity  to  perform  such  labor.  But  that 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  woman  was  a  drudge;  in  reality 
there  was  a  more  or  less  equitable  division  of  labor,  and  being  mis- 
tress of  her  wigwam  she  there  did  as  she  pleased.  With  the 
changes  wrought  by  later  development,  the  cessation  of  war  and 
decrease  in  importance  of  the  chase,  the  task  of  the  brave  became 
less  arduous,  that  of  the  squaw  more  so,  in  comparison  at  least. 

When  the  clan  system  prevailed  land  was  held  in  common 
and  the  right  of  inheritance  rested  with  the  clan.  Individual  own- 
ership is  said  to  have  existed  among  certain  tribes  in  California 
and  the  northwest.  Such  of  an  individual's  personal  effects  as 
were  not  buried  with  him  went  to  his  nearest  of  kin  within  the 
clan.  Hospitality  was  so  free  that  almost  anything  might  be  taken 
by  anyone  who  wanted  it,  and  the  niggard  was  classed  along  with 
the  coward.  Regular  slavery  existed  in  the  west,  a  mild  form  of 
it  in  the  east,  and  after  the  coming  of  the  white  man  the  Indians 
imitated  him  in  the  ownership  of  negro  slaves. 

In  the  simple  life  of  the  Indian  few  things  were  needed  to 
supply  his  daily  wants,  hence  there  was  but  little  industrial  activ- 
ity. Stone,  bone,  shells  and  wood  furnished  the  material  for  his 
tools.  From  the  first  he  made  his  tomahawk  or  battle-ax,  his  ar- 
row-points, many  of  which  may  still  be  found  in  various  parts  of 
the  country,  his  knife  and  his  pipe.  Bowls,  pots,  mortars  and 
pestles  for  pounding  grain  also  were  made  of  stone.  Great  care 
was  bestowed  upon  the  tomahawk  and  the  pipe,  the  latter  an  im- 
portant adjunct  on  state  occasions.  The  Haidas  were  famous  for 
their  slate  carving  and  Navajos  and  Pueblos  for  their  neck- 
laces and  ear-pendants.  Fishing-hooks,  sewing-awls,  knives  and 
sometimes  arrow-heads  were  made  of  bone.  The  Pueblos  carved 
their  mythological  characters  out  of  wood  and  gave  them  to  their 
children  for  dolls.  The  huge  totem  poles  of  the  northwest,  used 
to  designate  the  clans,  were  elaborately  carved  and  painted.  Nava- 
jos and  Pueblos  had  attained  no  little  skill  in  textile  work,  the  ma- 
terial being  cotton  at  first  and  later  wool.  Feather  weaving  was 
practiced  by  the  Gulf  tribes,  where  the  subtropical  birds  furnished 
them  with  beautiful  material.  Every  squaw  had  at  the  door  of  her 
wigwam  a  mat  woven  of  the  native  grasses  and  rushes  and  stained 
with  the  beautiful  native  dyes.  Woven  baskets  were  found  every- 
where, except  on  the  plains,  where  boxes  made  of  rawhide  took 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  15 

their  place.  The  baskets  of  California  were  famous  for  their 
beauty  of  design  and  closeness  of  weaving.  Pottery  also  was  of  al- 
most universal  use;  the  vessels  of  the  east  are  inferior  to  those 
of  the  Pueblos,  who  understood  how  to  paint  figures  and  fix  them 
by  burning.  All  of  this  work  fell  to  the  women,  who  also  dressed 
the  skins  and  made  thread  of  sinew.  But  in  all  this  they  have 
made  no  distinctive  contribution,  with  a  few  exceptions.  We  ad- 
mire their  handiwork  as  that  of  Indians,  not  because  of  any  intrin- 
sic merit,  but  in  a  sort  of  patronizing  way. 

War  and  the  chase  were  the  only  occupations  worthy  of  an 
Indian  brave.  His  weapons  consisted  of  the  knife,  club,  lance, 
bow  and  arrow  and  tomahawk  or  hatchet.  The  lance  and  shield 
were  used  only  by  the  horsemen  of  the  plains  where  there  were 
no  trees  and  underbrush  to  interfere  with  them.  Like  the  Ger- 
man leaders  described  by  Tacitus,  the  chief  commanded  not  so 
much  because  of  his  authority  as  by  his  personal  qualities.  If  he 
could  recount  many  deeds  of  valor  in  battle  and  wore  many  scalps 
in  his  belt,  the  young  braves  were  ready  and  willing  to  follow  him. 
When  the  decision  for  war  had  been  made,  the  braves  were  invited 
to  take  part.  The  preparation  for  war  often  lasted  some  time, 
the  object  being  to  assemble  a  sufficient  number  of  braves  and 
arouse  their  fury  to  an  uncontrollable  pitch.  This  latter  was  done 
by  recounting  the  story  of  their  wrongs  and  how  their  ancestors. 
or  how  on  previous  occasions  they  themselves,  had  avenged  their 
insults  and  won  glory. 

The  Indian  battle  was  something  very  different  from  the  bat- 
tle of  the  Europeans,  who  several  times  learned  this  to  their  sor- 
row. It  was  a  surprise,  or  a  skirmish  from  ambush,  or  a  hand-to- 
hand  encounter.  The  brave  was  in  reality  a  man  of  courage, 
yet  he  would  not  fight  in  the  open  so  long  as  he  could  help  it  or 
unless  he  could  gain  an  advantage  by  the  surprise.  He  preferred 
to  lurk  in  the  shadow  and  fell  his  enemy  from  behind,  springing 
upon  him  with  a  yell  which  in  itself  struck  terror  into  the  mind 
of  his  unsuspecting  victim.  The  ordinary  rule  was  neither  to  ask 
nor  give  quarter,  but  prisoners  were  often  taken  and  were  either 
tortured  to  death  or  enslaved  or  adopted.  Women  and  children 
shared  the  fate  of  the  warriors.  The  wars  were  wars  of  extermi- 
nation, and  to  kill  a  child  or  a  squaw  was  to  decrease  the  number 
of  future  enemies. 

If  a  campaign  proved  a  failure,  the  braves  shrunk  back  and 


16  THE     UNITED     STATES 

moped  in  silence  with  a  feeling  of  disgrace,  often  taunted  by  the 
squaws  for  their  lack  of  valor.  If  successful  the  return  was  cele- 
brated with  a  grand  scalp-dance,  the  women  now  singing  the  praise 
of  the  braves  as  they  flourished  the  scalps  about.  Captives  were 
made  to  run  the  gauntlet  or  were  tied  to  trees  so  that  the 
braves  might  amuse  themselves  by  tossing  their  tomahawks  at 
them  to  see  them  dodge.  They  were  either  killed  in  this  way  or 
burned  at  the  stake.  Sometimes  they  feasted  upon  one  of  the  slain, 
or  made  a  pretense  of  doing  so.  Real  cannibalism,  of  which  this 
possibly  was  a  survival,  cannot  be  said  to  have  existed  north  of 
Mexico.  Though  the  condition  of  war  was  almost  chronic,  there 
were  tribes  which  buried  the  hatchet;  that  is,  made  peace  and  en- 
joyed long  periods  of  repose. 

The  savage  wars  waged  against  the  white  colonists  were  hor- 
rible indeed,  but  hardly  more  so  than  those  waged  by  Indians 
against  Indians.  In  the  former  the  "  Red  Man  "  was  fighting  for 
his  native  heath ;  he  saw  slowly  but  surely  his  lands  taken  from  him. 
while  he  was  being  pushed  backward,  backward,  ever  backward 
into  the  forest  and  toward  the  setting  sun.  Ofttimes,  too,  he  was 
mistreated  by  knavish  whites  and  he  judged  the  race  by  his  opinion 
of  the  meanest  individual. 

Peace  had  her  victories  as  well  as  war,  this  time  in  athletic 
contests,  games,  dances,  feasts  and  story-telling.  Foot-racing  and 
horse-racing  were  common,  but  ball  was  the  chief  sport.  It  was 
played  with  sticks  and  netted  sticks  resembling  rackets.  Shinny 
and  football  were  indulged  in  by  women,  not,  however,  according 
to  Rugby  rules.  Music  charmed  the  savage,  whether  made  by 
the  drum,  the  flageolet,  whistle,  or  in  songs  of  lullaby  or  work,  love 
or  war. 


IV 

PRESENT    CONDITION    AND    FUTURE    OUTLOOK 

Popular  misconceptions  regarding  the  Indians  are  common. 
These  have  arisen  from  the  romance  writers  and  from  the  accounts 
left  by  the  colonists,  who  often  did  not  know  the  Indian  as  he 
really  was.  The  Indian  was  by  training  and  nature  deliberate  and 
dignified  on  state  occasions,  and  it  was  at  just  such  times  that 
the  colonists  received  their  strongest  impressions  of  him.     In  con- 


ABORIGINAL     AMERICA  17 

sequence,  they  described  him  as  taciturn,  often  morose  and  sullen. 
On  the  contrary,  those  who  have  known  him  in  his  home  and  ob- 
served his  life  there  declare  that  he  is  cheerful  and  talkative. 
The  "  noble  red  man  "  was  largely  a  creation  of  the  romantic 
imagination.  His  much-vaunted  stoical  indifference  to  pain  was, 
indeed,  a  remarkable  characteristic;  but  even  this  was  a  sort  of 
dress  put  on  for  show  in  public.  In  private  life  he  was  nervous, 
hysterical,  often  manifesting  a  childish  dread  of  pain.  As  for 
honor,  some  of  the  colonists  looked  upon  the  Indian  very  much 
as  the  Romans  did  the  Carthaginian,  but  often  without  just  cause. 
In  most  cases  the  Indian  kept  faith  when  dealt  with  fairly,  even 
when  being  gradually  pushed  backward  from  his  hunting  grounds. 
But  at  best  he  was  a  dirty  savage,  dwelling  in  squalor  and  filth,  and 
content  therewith.  In  consequence  epidemic  diseases  have  often 
decimated  the  tribes. 

No  reliable  statistics  are  to  be  had  regarding  the  number  of 
Indians  in  America  at  the  time  of  the  discovery,  but  conservative 
estimates  place  the  number  east  of  the  Mississippi  at  200,000. 
West  of  the  river  were  many  more.  In  1900  there  were  260,000 
in  the  United  States,  129,815  of  whom  were  "  Indians  not  taxed." 
Whole  tribes  have  become  extinct.  Out  of  sixteen  tribes  met 
with  on  a  journey  from  Charleston  to  Albemarle  Sound  in  1701, 
only  the  famous  Tuscaroras  and  Catawbas  remain.  The  most 
marked  decrease  has  occurred  on  the  plains.  The  Pawnees  have 
fallen  from  12,000  in  1834  to  650  in  1900.  The  Navajos  have 
been  almost  undisturbed  and  are  holding  their  own;  but  the  native 
Californians,  numerous  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  gold,  have 
almost  become  extinct.  A  century  ago  the  Aleuts  were  estimated 
at  25,000,  now  at  about  2,000. 

For  this  destruction  the  coming  of  the  white  man  is  chiefly 
responsible.  Neither  in  war  nor  in  peace  has  the  Indian  been 
able  to  stand  against  or  beside  him.  Sentimentalists  have  in- 
veighed against  the  whites  for  this;  but  history  teaches  that  in- 
ferior people  must  yield  to  a  superior  civilization  in  one  way  or 
another.  They  must  take  on  civilization  or  pass  out.  The  negro 
was  able  to  endure  slavery  while  learning  the  rudiments  of  civiliza- 
tion; the  Indian  could  not  endure  slavery,  and,  for  centuries  at 
least,  he  refused  to  be  taught.  He  is  at  last  going  to  school,  but 
his  graduation  probably  will  only  hasten  his  extinction  as  a  race. 
An  intense  race  feeling  has  preserved  the  negro  from  amalgama- 


18  THE     UNITED     STATES 

tion,  but  this  feeling  does  not  exist  so  strongly  among  the  whites 
against  the  Indians,  nor  between  the  Indians  and  negroes. 

It  is  not  meant  by  this  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  day  will 
soon  come  when  there  will  be  no  Indians  in  the  United  States,  much 
less  in  America.  Nearly  all  the  Indians  are  now  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  practically  all  of  whom  retain  a  real  tribal  organization. 
The  disappearance  of  the  separate  organization  does  not  seem  to 
be  far  distant,  but  communities  of  distinctly  Indian  blood  probably 
will  be  met  with  centuries  hence.  And  no  doubt  they  will  make 
good  citizens,  taking  part  in  the  teeming  life  all  around  them  in- 
stead of  standing  aloof,  like  the  Basques  in  the  mountain  fast- 
nesses of  the  Pyrenees. 


Chapter   II 

DISCOVERIES   AND    EXPLORATIONS.     1000-1606 


PRECURSORS  OF  COLUMBUS 

SO  far  as  man  can  see  now,  Christopher  Columbus  will  be 
honored  throughout  all  time  as  the  discoverer  of  America; 
yet  there  is  good  historical  evidence  that  Europeans  visited 
our  shores  many  years  before  he  was  born.  This  evidence  is  found 
in  the  "  sagas  "  or  writings  of  the  Northmen.  These  sagas  were 
put  into  written  form  two  or  three  hundred  years  after  the  events 
they  describe,  but  their  credibility  is  not  thereby  destroyed,  for 
students  of  the  classics  know  well  that  the  Homeric  poems  were 
handed  down  by  word  of  mouth  for  centuries.  The  sum  and 
substance  of  the  report  of  the  sagas  is  that  Leif  Ericson  sailed 
away  from  Norway  about  the  year  1000  a.  d.,  and  that  he  discov- 
ered an  unknown  land  while  on  a  missionary  voyage  from  Iceland 
to  Greenland.1  The  precise  whereabouts  of  the  new  land  thus  dis- 
covered is  not  known,  but  from  the  several  accounts  contained  in 
the  "  Codex  Flatoensis,"  or  the  "  Flatey  Book,"  as  the  compilation 
is  called  in  English,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  shores 
touched  were  other  than  those  of  America,  probably  Nova  Scotia  or 
New  England. 

Subsequently  the  Northmen  conducted  several  voyages  to  Vin- 
land  the  Good,  as  the  new  land  was  called,  and  made  a  few  at- 
tempts at  settlement.  One  party  seems  to  have  visited  a  southern 
latitude  where  they  passed  the  winter  without  seeing  snow  and 
where  their  cattle  were  supported  by  grazing.  According  to  their 
story,  they  also  found  a  wonderful  birdland  where  the  eggs  were 
so  thick  that  it  was  hardly  possible  to  step  between  them.  Self- 
sown  wheat  fields  were  also  there,  and  in  the  hollows  were  vines 
heavy   with   grapes.     The   natives,    whom   the    Northmen    called 

1  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  3. 
19 


20  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1000 

Skrellings  (inferiors),  were  said  to  have  come  in  skin  boats  and 
exchanged  perfect  unsullied  skins  for  a  red  stuff  (cloth)  a  span  in 
length,  which  they  bound  about  their  heads.2  The  Skrellings  were 
very  fond  of  cow's  milk,  and  we  are  told  in  the  Icelandic  writ- 
ings that  the  outcome  of  their  trading  was  that  they  carried  away 
their  stomachs.  The  Northmen  made  many  voyages  to  this  goodly 
land  and  carried  away  timber,  peltries,  grapes  and  all  kinds  of 
game  and  fish,  "  and  other  good  things,"  but  after  a  while  they 
ceased  to  come,  and  the  memory  of  it  was  lost  save  to  a  few  schol- 
ars who  read  about  it  in  old  manuscripts.  While,  therefore,  Leif 
Ericson  and  his  followers  were  probably  the  first  Europeans  to  visit 
America,  their  discovery  had  no  permanent  result  and  the  history 
of  the  country  would  have  been  what  it  has  been  had  they  never 
left  their  native  shores." 

Omitting  the  stories  of  the  very  ancient  empires  of  Babylon 
and  upper  Egypt,  practically  all  interest  in  the  history  of  civiliza- 
tion down  to  the  close  of  the  middle  ages  centers  about  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea.  The  Greeks  and  Romans  really  knew  very  little  of 
any  countries  not  bordering  upon  it,  and  much  that  they  knew  was 
forgotten  after  their  splendid  civilizations  ceased  to  be  a  living 
force.  When  the  Saracen  invaders  occupied  northern  Africa  and 
Spain  they  so  threatened  the  commerce  of  Europe  with  Asia  that 
Constantinople  alone  kept  up  a  considerable  trade  with  the  East. 
Then  came  the  Seljukian  Turks,  a  nomadic  tribe  from  central 
Asia,  whose  conversion  to  Mohammedanism  seemed  only  to  in- 
crease their  barbarism.  Not  content  with  desecrating  the  Holy 
Land  and  sweeping  away  the  civilization  of  Asia  Minor,  they 
began  to  threaten  the  very  center  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  Con- 
stantinople, and  even  Europe  itself.  This  danger  aroused  the  lead- 
ing minds  in  Christendom  to  a  realization  of  the  necessity  of  self- 
defense,  and  the  result  was  the  Crusades. 

To  many  people  the  Crusades  mean  simply  a  series  of  expe- 
ditions based  on  religious  zeal  to  rescue  the  tomb  of  the  Savior 
from  the  impious  hands  of  the  infidel.  W'hile  this  was  the  ostensi- 
ble object,  it  is  probable  that  mixed  motives  never  entered  more 
largely  into  any  expedition.  Kings  went  to  extend  their  borders 
and  found  empires;  nobles,  in  the  hope  of  gaining  power  and  be- 

2  Reeves,  "  Wineland,"  p.   174. 

3  Winsor,  "Pre-Columbian   Explorations"  in  "Narrative  and   Critical   His- 
tory," vol.  i.  ell.  2;  also  Fiske,  "Discovery  of  America."  vol.  i.  pp.   149-255. 


EXPLORATIONS  21 

1000-1450 

coming  kings ;  knights,  in  search  of  adventure ;  serfs,  to  gain  their 
freedom.  As  a  spiritual  reward  all  who  went  on  the  first  Cru- 
sade were  to  receive  plenary  indulgences.4  In  all  was  the  instinct 
of  self-defense.  These  expeditions  accomplished  no  permanent  re- 
sults in  rescuing  the  tomb  or  in  founding  empires,  but  they  stimu- 
lated men's  minds  and  aroused  in  western  Europe  a  deeper  interest 
in  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  an  interest  which  was 
never  wholly  lost,  and  although  the  West  again  sank  into  com- 
parative inactivity  after  the  failure  of  their  romantic  adventures, 
the  trade  with  the  East  went  on  by  way  of  Constantinople,  Alex- 
andria and  Venice.  Rulers  in  Europe,  both  petty  and  great,  were 
kept  busy  at  home  in  maintaining  their  security  against  usurping 
vassals  and  jealous  neighbors,  until  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth 
century  the  movement  toward  absolute  monarchies  may  be  said  to 
have  begun.  The  nations  began  to  feel  the  throb  of  a  new  life 
under  its  touch  and  to  look  abroad  in  anticipation  of  the  strength 
which  would  come  with  their  unification. 

At  the  same  time  that  kings  were  building  up  their  power 
the  mind  of  man  was  being  set  free.  The  literatures  of  Greece  and 
Rome  were  rediscovered  and  the  bonds  of  ignorance  were  break- 
ing. Printing  from  movable  type,  recently  discovered,  was  paving 
the  way  for  a  more  general  diffusion  of  knowledge.  Sculpture 
and  painting  were  cultivated  as  never  before  —  and  while  science 
was  still  groping  in  darkness  there  were  on  every  hand  signs  of 
a  coming  dawn.  This  great  period  was  known  as  the  Renaissance, 
and  it  began  in  Italy. 

But  Italy  was  not  at  this  time  wholly  absorbed  in  literature, 
art  and  architecture.  Capital  was  abundant,  agriculture  and  manu- 
facturing were  flourishing  and  commerce  was  in  a  thriving  condi- 

4  These  terms  are  used  in  a  sense  strictly  technical.  Precisely  what  was  said 
by  Pope  Urban  II.,  who  presided  at  the  Council  of  Clermont,  it  is  now  impossible 
to  determine ;  but  from  extant  versions  of  his  addresses  we  know  that  he  spoke 
of  the  Saracen  attack  upon  Spain,  the  victories  of  the  Turks  and  the  appeal  from 
Constantinople  for  aid.  The  desecration  of  holy  places,  the  oppression  of  East- 
ern Christians,  and  the  suffering  of  pilgrims  were  also  discussed.  The  necessity 
of  ceasing  combats  at  home  and  aiding  fellow  Christians  in  the  East  required 
little  emphasis.  These  were  the  chief  considerations  which  prompted  the  Pope 
to  preach  the  First  Crusade.  Though  some  authorities  believe  that  there  was  on 
the  part  of  the  Crusaders  an  expectation  of  enjoying  the  spoils  of  the  enemy,  it 
is  by  no  means  certain  that  they  were  promised  any  temporal  power  beyond  the 
advantages  of  checking  the  career  of  the  Turks.  See  Munro  in  American  His- 
torical Reviezv,  January,    iqo6\ 


22  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1450-1453 

tion.  Perhaps  the  chief  permanent  result  of  the  Crusades  was 
the  stimulus  given  to  commerce  with  the  East,  or  Indies,  as  the 
southeastern  part  of  Asia,  with  its  adjacent  islands,  was  known. 
The  leader  of  the  Italian  states  in  this  respect  was  Venice,  though 
Genoa  became  no  mean  rival.  Of  the  two  important  trade  routes 
to  India  the  Venetians  took  the  one  by  Cairo  and  the  Red  Sea, 
that  is,  the  water  route;  the  Genoese  allied  themselves  with  Con- 
stantinople and  took  the  northern  route  by  the  Black  Sea  and 
thence  overland  by  caravans.  This  trade  consisted  mainly  in  the 
exchange  of  glass  vessels,  wine,  linen  and  light  woolen  goods  for 
silks,  ivory,  precious  stones,  and  the  much  coveted  spices.  It 
contributed  largely  to  the  wealth  and  importance  of  these  diminu- 
tive states,  whose  increasing  power  was  viewed  with  jealous  eyes 
by  the  states  of  the  West,  which  naturally  became  restless  at  their 
dependence  on  the  Italians  for  these  wares.  Could  they  not  find 
a  route  to  India  and  secure  them  directly?  This  question  had 
been  pondered  for  some  time  when  one  of  the  great  events  of  his- 
tory, the  capture  of  Constantinople  (1453)  DY  tne  Turks,  which 
cut  off  the  route  used  by  the  Genoese  and  threatened  that  of  the 
Venetians,  made  it  more  imperative  than  ever  to  find  an  answer. 
But  how?  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  this  commerce  had  lasted 
many  years  and  had  been  considerable  in  amount,  not  even  the  Ital- 
ians knew  much  of  the  countries  whence  it  came.  The  traffic  had 
not  been  carried  on  directly,  but  through  the  Mohammedans,  and 
few  Europeans  had  ever  seen  India  or  Cathay  (China).  By  what 
other  than  the  well-known  routes  could  those  lands  be  reached  ? 

The  commerce  of  India  was  controlled  through  the  Black  and 
the  Caspian  Seas.  The  Venetian  mariner,  Da  Gama,  had  not  yet 
discovered  the  long  maritime  route  down  the  coast  of  the  continent 
to  the  south  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Only  the  trackless  ocean 
stretched  away  to  the  west.  It  was  the  claim  of  some  philosophers 
that  the  earth  was  round,  and,  if  the  Italian  geographer,  Toscanelli, 
could  be  believed,  so  small  that  sailing  westward  a  few  thousand 
miles  would  bring  the  mariner  to  the  coveted  shores  of  Cipango 
(as  Marco  Polo  had  called  Japan)  and  Cathay. 

Nearly  six  hundred  years  before  Christ,  Pythagoras  an- 
nounced his  belief  that  the  earth  was  a  sphere,  and  his  teaching 
was  accepted  by  Plato  and  Aristotle.  Aristotle  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.C.  demonstrated  his  theory  with  remarkable  accuracy  by  ob- 
serving that  the  earth's  shadow  on  the  moon  at  the  time  of  eclipse 


EXPLORATIONS  28 

1453 

was  circular  in  form,  and  by  noticing  that  certain  stars  which 
were  visible  in  southerly  latitudes  could  not  be  seen  farther  north.5 
How  men  could  walk  in  the  antipodal  world  with  their  "  heads 
down "  was  a  problem  that  puzzled  even  the  philosophers,  but 
they  held  on  to  a  vague  belief  in  some  such  world.  Strabo,  the 
Roman  geographer  (40  B.c-60  a.d.),  quoted  with  approval  the 
belief  of  Eratosthenes  (third  centry  B.C.)  in  the  feasibility  of  a 
sea  voyage  from  Iberia  (Spain)  to  India  on  the  same  parallel  of 
latitude.6  But  no  mariner  was  found  bold  enough  to  pass  be- 
yond the  Pillars  of  Hercules  and  tempt  the  Sea  of  Darkness,  as 
the  Atlantic  was  then  called,  and  which  popular  belief  had  peopled 
with  dreadful  monsters.  There  was  also  the  fear  that  a  ship 
having  once  passed  down  the  slope  of  the  globe  could  never  return 
even  if  it  escaped  the  fiery  zone  at  the  middle  belt  of  the  earth 
where  the  vertical  rays  of  the  sun  caused  the  sea  to  boil  with  fury. 
A  popular  belief  was  that  the  outer  or  unknown  world  was  com- 
posed chiefly  of  water.  In  the  second  century  a.d.  Claudius 
Ptolemy  propounded  the  theory  that  Asia  extended  indefinitely  to 
the  north  and  east,  that  Africa  likewise  extended  indefinitely  to  the 
south  and  east,  and  that  the  two  met  and  inclosed  the  Indian 
Ocean.7 

Such  were  the  inherited  beliefs  of  the  middle  ages,  but  the 
globular  theory  of  the  form  of  the  earth  does  not  appear  ever  to 
have  been  entirely  forgotten.  It  was  easily  preserved  among  the 
Arabs,  who  were  devoted  students  of  Aristotle.  Whether  derived 
from  the  same  source  or  not,  for  Christians,  especially  the  school- 
men, were  also  students  of  Aristotle  —  we  find  the  same  theory 
referred  to  by  Christian  writers,  such  as  Roger  Bacon  in  his  "  Opus 
Majus"  in  the  thirteenth  century  a.d.,  and  by  D'Ailly  in  his 
"  Imago  Mundi,"  written  in  the  following  century.  The  revival 
of  the  study  of  the  Greek  writers  in  the  fifteenth  century  greatly 
strengthened  the  hold  of  the  theory,  but  even  before  that  time 
men's  minds  had  been  prepared  to  accept  it.  There  was  first  of  all 
the  desire  to  find  a  western  or  southern  route  to  India.  In  the 
thirteenth  century  certain  travelers  who  had  returned  from  the 
East  declared  that  Ptolemy  was  mistaken  in  supposing  Asia  to  be 

5  See  Aristotle,  "  De  Ccelo,"  Taylor's  translation. 

6  See  Strabo,  "  Geography,"  ch.  iv. 

7  See  Tillinghast.  "  Geographical  Knowledge  of  the  Ancients  Considered  in 
Relation  to  the  Discovery  of  America,"  in  Winsor,  vol.  i.  ch.  i. 


24  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1453-1463 

of  indefinite  extent,  for  it  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  an  ocean. 
Some  years  later  this  report  was  confirmed  by  the  book  of  a  re- 
markable man,  Marco  Polo. 

Marco  Polo,  a  Venetian,  the  son  of  a  wealthy  merchant,  ac- 
companied his  father  on  a  trading  journey  to  the  far-away  Orient, 
where  he  won  the  favor  of  the  famous  Kublai  Khan.  After  an  ab- 
sence of  twenty- four  years  he  returned  to  Venice  in  1295,  only  to 
be  cast  into  prison  by  the  Genoese,  with  whom  the  Venetians 
were  at  war.  While  in  prison  he  dictated  "  The  Book  of  Ser 
Marco  Polo  the  Venetian  concerning  the  Kingdom  and  Marvels 
of  the  East,"  in  which  he  described  his  wondrous  travels  through 
Thibet,  Burmah,  Hindoostan,  Siam,  Cathay  and  even  made  men- 
tion of  Cipango  (Japan).  While  the  marvels  received  their  due 
share  of  attention,  the  book,  first  circulated  in  the  early  fourteenth 
century,  made  a  real  contribution  to  the  geographical  knowledge  of 
Europe,  perhaps  the  greatest  made  by  any  one  man  to  the  geo- 
graphical knowledge  of  the  middle  ages.8  It  helped  to  confirm 
the  belief  that  there  was  an  ocean  east  of  Asia.  Together  with 
"  The  Voyage  and  Travels  of  Sir  John  Mandeville,"  which  ap- 
peared toward  the  last  of  the  fifteenth  century,  it  also  helped  to 
whet  men's  greed  for  the  wealth  of  the  East  and  to  keep  alive 
their  interest  in  its  fabled  stone  bridges,  pillars  of  gold,  large  pre- 
cious stones,  and  a  fountain  whose  waters  possessed  the  remarkable 
powrer  of  bestowing  perpetual  youth. 

In  spite  of  all  these  incentives,  however,  and  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  men  now  had  the  mariner's  compass  as  a  guide, 
the  Sea  of  Darkness  still  remained  untried.  The  Portuguese  re- 
solved to  make  the  attempt,  and  their  first  ship  set  out  in  1419  and 
discovered  an  island  (probably  known  to  the  Portuguese  before 
this)  which  they  called  Madeira.  The  island  was  set  on  fire  and 
is  said  to  have  burned  seven  years,  after  which  they  planted  it 
with  grapes  from  Greece  and  sugar  from  Sicily  and  Cyprus,  the 
first  of  which  are  still  there.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  Portuguese 
to  establish  factories  or  trading  posts  in  newly  discovered  lands, 
and  it  was  Prince  Henry,  surnamed  the  Navigator,  who  led  the 
voyagers  that  blazed  the  way  for  these.  The  clergy  were  his 
hearty  coadjutors,  and  each  ship  carried  a  priest,  and  a  church 
arose  in  each  factory.      Prince  Henry  died  in   1463.  but  his  suc- 

8  Charming,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  9. 


EXPLORATIONS  25 

1463-1510 

cessor,  John  II.,  inspired  by  him,  continued  the  work.  In  1484 
Diogo  Cam  passed  down  the  west  coast  of  Africa  to  a  point  far 
below  the  equator,  and  in  1487,  Bartholomew  Diaz,  accompanied 
by  Bartholomew  Columbus,  a  brother  of  the  future  discoverer  of 
America,  sailed  around  the  southern  point  of  Africa,  called  the 
Cape  of  Storms,  and  proceeded  several  hundred  miles  into  the  In- 
dian Ocean  before  returning  to  Portugal.  The  name  of  the  cape, 
King  John,  with  good  sense  and  true  insight,  changed  to  that  of 
Good  Hope. 

Shortly  after  this,  Columbus,  the  greatest  navigator  of  his 
time,  if  not  of  all  times,  made  his  famous  voyage;  but  it  is  proper 
to  break  the  chronology  here  and  follow  the  fortunes  of  the  Portu- 
guese a  little  farther.  July  8,  1497,  Vasco  da  Gama  left  Lisbon 
with  four  ships  and  one  hundred  and  sixty  men.  May  20,  1498, 
he  rode  at  anchor  before  the  city  of  Calicut,  India,  where  was 
founded  the  first  European  factory  in  the  Orient.  Albuquerque, 
by  the  capture  of  Socotora  on  the  Red  Sea  and  Ormuzon  on  the 
Persian  Gulf  (1507),  closed  to  the  Mussulmans  and  Venetians  their 
former  routes  to  the  "wealth  of  Ormus  and  of  Ind."  In  15 10 
he  conquered  Goa,  which,  with  its  fine  harbor,  became  the  center 
of  a  vast  colonial  empire.  Four  thousand  leagues  of  coast  line, 
from  Lisbon  to  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  from  there  to  Hindoostan, 
thence  on  to  Malacca,  Indo-China,  and  even  Cipango,  were  domi- 
nated by  Portuguese  fortresses.  Patriotic  and  religious  zeal,  com- 
bined with  love  of  gain,  had  inspired  the  heroic  work.  None  of 
these  hardy  Portuguese  seamen  had  ever  reached  American  shores, 
but  it  may  be  said  that  their  voyages  constituted  a  school  of  naviga- 
tion for  the  future  American  voyagers. 

The  western  coast  of  Africa  was  of  no  importance  until  after 
the  introduction  of  the  slave  trade.  From  eastern  Africa  came 
gold  dust  and  ivory.  Ormus  poured  out  the  wealth  of  central 
Asia,  while  Malacca  opened  up  the  commerce  of  Indo-China. 
From  Macao,  near  Canton,  the  hardy  traders  reached  out  to  Ja- 
pan.0 This  good  fortune  of  Portugal  proved  the  ruin  of  Venice. 
In  desperation  she  freed  everything  coming  through  Egypt  and 
taxed  heavily  everything  coming  via  the  cape,  but  all  in  vain.  The 
currents  of  commerce  had  set  to  other  shores,  never  to  return  to 
hers  with  the  old  strength. 

0  Cheney,   '"  European   Background  of  American  History,"  ch.  iv. 


26  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1492 

II 

THE    VOYAGES    OF    COLUMBUS 

The  voyages  of  the  Portuguese  had  been  watched  with  no 
little  interest  by  an  Italian  navigator,  Christopher  Columbus,  who 
took  up  his  residence  in  Lisbon  about  1470,  and  who,  there  is 
good  reason  to  believe,  had  actually  participated  in  some  of  the 
Portuguese  maritime  adventures.10  The  exact  date  of  the  birth 
of  Christopher  Columbus,  or  Colon,  as  he  preferred  to  call  him- 
self, is  not  known,  but  many  writers  have  given  1436  as  the  year, 
though  some  favor  a  later  date,  some  an  earlier  one.11  Seven 
cities  claimed  the  honor  of  being  the  birthplace  of  Homer;  not 
less  than  eighteen  Italian  towns  have  claimed  a  similar  honor  for 
Columbus,  but  he  always  referred  to  Genoa  as  the  place  of  his 
nativity,  and  nearly  all  scholars  have  agreed  in  awarding  the  honor 
to  Genoa.  Little  is  known  of  his  boyhood,  but  it  probably  was 
spent  in  helping  his  father,  who  was  a  wool  comber.  While  not 
possessed  of  wealth,  his  father  was  able  to  give  him  a  respectable 
education.  Beyond  the  common  studies  he  learned  something  of 
Latin,  the  higher  mathematics  and  astronomy,  while  cosmography 
and  nautical  science  were  objects  of  study  with  him  all  his  life,  and 
he  knew  as  much  about  them  as  any  man  of  his  age. 

Genoa,  like  her  rival,  Venice,  was  a  seafaring  state,  and  it 
was  only  natural  that  Columbus  should  take  to  the  Mediterranean. 
His  first  voyage  was  made  when  he  was  but  a  lad  of  fourteen; 
as  he  grew  older  he  was  much  at  sea.  sometimes  in  commercial  ad- 
ventures, sometimes  in  the  service  of  his  native  city  in  her  naval 
struggles  with  her  Italian  rivals.  Doubtless  the  fame  of  Lisbon 
as  the  center  of  nautical  science  and  marine  adventures  attracted 
him  to  that  place.  Here  he  took  to  the  sea  again  and  visited  the 
Cape  Verde  Islands,  the  Azores,  and  tradition  says  touched  the 
coast  of  Iceland.  When  not  at  sea  he  spent  his  time  in  study  and 
in  making  maps  and  charts.  A  few  years  after  reaching  Lisbon 
he  married,  a  step  which  promoted  his  ambition,  his  wife's  father 
having  been  a  great  navigator  and  having  left  many  maps  and 
charts. 

10  Charming,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.   12. 

11  Harrissc  and  Winsor  agree  upon  1436  as  the  year;  Henry  Vignaud  thinks 
1451  more  nearly  correct;  while  Bourne  makes  no  attempt  to  settle  the  question. 


EXPLORATIONS 


1492 


n 


Until  recently  historians  have  accepted  the  statement  that 
Columbus  corresponded  with  the  great  Florentine  astronomer  Tos- 
canelli,  who  sent  him  a  map  of  the  world  on  which  Europe  and 
Asia  were  represented  as  separated  only  by  an  ocean,  and  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  India  could  be  reached  by  sailing  westward 
from  Europe.  But  lately  this  story  has  been  attacked  and  ren- 
dered more  than  doubtful.  Whether  he  ever  received  a  letter  and 
map  from  Toscanelli  or  not,  it  is  only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he 
was  familiar  with  the  teachings  of  a  man  so  well  known,  although 


Early  Voyages 

UNKNWN  WORLD  1*92  E3 


he  nowhere  makes  mention  of  him.12  Certain  it  is  that  he  was 
familiar  with  the  geographical  writings  of  Ptolemy,  Roger  Bacon, 
Marco  Polo,  whose  book  made  a  lasting  impression  on  his  mind. 
./Eneas  Sylvius,  later  Pope  Pius  II.,  and  also  with  Pierre  d'Ailly's 


12  For  a  scholarly  discussion  of  the  controversy  concerning  the  Toscanelli 
map  see  E.  G.  Bourne,  "  Spain  in  America,"  pp.  12-15.  This  author  does  not,  as 
does  Henry  Vignaud,  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  correspondence  between  Co- 
lumbus and  the  astronomer,  but  insists  that  even  if  the  letters  were  genuine  they 
contained  no  information  which  was  not  already  known  to  Columbus.  Channing, 
vol.  i.  p.  17,  inclines  to  the  same  view,  while  Sir  C.  R.  Markham  in  his  "  Journal 
of  Columbus,"  pp.  1-10,  goes  to  the  other  extreme. 


28  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1492 

"  Imago  Mundi,"  an  encyclopaedic  compilation  printed  between 
1480  and  1483,  and  on  a  copy  of  which  at  Seville  one  may  still  read 
marginal  notes  of  a  highly  critical  character  in  what  appears  to  be 
the  handwritng  of  Columbus.13  If,  as  these  books  taught,  the 
world  was  round,  why  could  not  India,  only  about  three  thousand 
miles  away  to  the  west,  as  Toscanelli  and  he  believed,  be  found  by 
sailing  westward  ? 

The  idea  that  India  could  be  reached  by  sailing  to  the  west 
was  not  original  with  Columbus,  but  he  towers  above  the  men  of 
his  age  and  all  the  preceding  ages  in  that  he  was  the  first  man  who 
was  willing  to  risk  his  fortune  and  his  life  to  prove  the  theory: 

"  What  if  wise  men  as  far  back  as  Ptolemy, 
Judged  that  the  earth  like  an  orange  was  round. 
None  of  them  ever  said  '  Come  along,  follow  me. 
Sail  to  the  West,  and  the  East  will  be  found.' " 

It  remained  for  Columbus  to  take  the  lead  and  demonstrate 
the  theories  propounded  by  others.  The  undertaking,  however, 
was  too  great  for  him  alone,  and  he  applied  to  King  John  II.,  of 
Portugal.  When  the  king  consulted  his  wise  men  they  condemned 
the  scheme  as  that  of  a  dreamer.  But  the  king  remembered  Henry 
the  Navigator,  and  thought  that  there  might  be  something  in  the 
scheme.  However,  he  wished  to  gain  all  the  glory  himself,  and 
sent  out  a  secret  expedition  with  directions  to  follow  the  plans  of 
Columbus.  The  only  result  was  to  drive  Columbus  in  disgust  from 
Portugal  to  Spain. 

At  this  time  the  Spanish  nation  was  in  the  formative  period. 
The  two  most  important  Christian  kingdoms  of  the  peninsula  were 
united  in  1469  by  the  marriage  of  Ferdinand  of  Aragon  and  Isa- 
bella of  Castile.  When  Columbus  arrived,  these  two  sovereigns 
were  busily  engaged  in  carrying  out  their  determination  to  add  the 
Moorish  kingdom  to  their  own ;  consequently  it  was  difficult  for 
him  to  reach  the  royal  ears.  But  as  they  pursued  the  enemy  Co- 
lumbus pursued  them  from  Cordova  to  Salamanca,  to  Malaga,  and 
back  again  to  Cordova.  Here,  as  in  Portugal,  the  wise  men  were 
consulted :  some  favored,  others  condemned  the  project.     Powerful 

13  E.  G.  Bourne,  "Spain  in  America."  p.  10.  Channing,  "History  of  the 
United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  15,  is  disposed  to  minimize  the  influence  of  the  ancient 
theories  on  Columbus,  and  asserts  that  he  had  already  reached  his  conclusions 
with  regard  to  the  sphericity  of  the  earth  before  reading  D'Ailly's  "  Imago 
Mundi." 


EXPLORATIONS  29 

1492 

friends  at  the  royal  court  took  up  his  cause.  The  sovereigns  ex- 
pressed a  real  interest  in  it.  but  their  answer  was  always  the  same. 
— To-morrow,  when  the  war  is  over.  After  six  or  seven  years  of 
fruitless  effort,  Columbus  at  last  despaired  of  securing  aid  in  that 
quarter  and  decided  to  leave  Spain,  although  he  never  for  once 
wavered  in  his  belief  and  purpose.  His  brother  Bartholomew  had 
already  gone  to  England  to  seek  the  needed  help  from  Henry  VII. 

But  at  last  the  sovereigns  of  Spain  were  moved  to  action. 
Weary  and  footsore  with  the  journey  afoot,  Columbus  stopped  at 
the  monastery  of  La  Rabida  to  ask  for  bread  and  water  for  his 
child,  whom  he  had  taken  with  him  on  leaving  the  rest  of  his  family 
behind  in  Portugal.14  The  prior,  Father  Juan  Perez,  formerly  con- 
fessor to  the  queen,  heard  his  story  and  believed  it.  At  the  en- 
treaties of  these  and  other  influential  personages  at  court  she  agreed 
to  hear  the  story  once  more  and  sent  the  Genoese  adventurer  a  sum 
of  money  with  which  to  array  himself  properly  before  coming  into 
her  presence.  Shortly  after  his  arrival  he  witnessed  the  fall  of 
Granada  (January  2,  1492),  and  saw  Boabdil  pass  out  the  gates  and 
pause  to  weep  over  the  city  while  his  mother  upbraided  him  with 
the  loss  of  an  empire  which  the  Moslem  had  conquered  for  him 
eight  centuries  before. 

The  Moorish  war  over  at  last,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  had 
realized  their  dream  of  a  united  Spain  and  were  ready  to  hear  this 
dreamer  tell  of  rich  realms  beyond  the  Sea  of  Darkness,  which 
should  also  be  theirs.  But  Columbus  would  exact  hard  condi- 
tions. First  of  all  he  must  be  a  grandee  and  admiral  of  the  ocean 
and  viceroy  of  all  the  heathen  lands  he  might  discover.  One- 
eighth  of  the  gold  and  silver  from  such  lands  should  be  his,  as 
also  one-tenth  of  the  profits  by  trade  or  conquest.  In  return  he 
would  bear  one-eighth  of  the  expense.  The  conditions  were  re- 
jected and  Columbus  again  turned  his  face  toward  foreign  lands, 
but  the  Marchioness  de  Moya,  at  the  time  a  confidential  friend  of 
the  queen,  appealed  to  her  in  his  behalf,  and  she  at  length  consented 
to  give  the  aid  desired. 

Three  vessels  of  the  caravel  class  were  finally  fitted  out,  the 
Santa  Maria,  the  Pint  a,  and  the  Nina,  all  of  them  very  small,  so 
small,  indeed,  that  one  would  be  considered  foolhardy  should  he 
venture  to  cross  the  ocean  in  such  craft  to-day.     Securing  a  crew 

14  Winsor,    "  Columbus    and    His    Discoveries "   in    "  Narrative   and    Critical 
History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  5. 


30  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1492 

was  no  easy  task,  and  for  a  time  it  looked  as  if  the  government 
would  be  compelled  to  use  force  by  impressing  seamen  and  releas- 
ing criminals  for  that  purpose;  but  through  the  influence  of  the 
powerful  Pinzon  family  a  crew  was  finally  obtained  without  resort- 
ing to  conscription  or  emptying  the  jails.  The  expense  of  the 
voyage  was  borne  by  the  queen,  Luis  Santangel,  and  Columbus 
himself,  the  total  amount  aggregating  according  to  careful  esti- 
mates about  $  1 00,000. 15  A  metallurgist  was  taken  along  to  test 
the  gold  they  felt  sure  of  finding.  In  all  there  were  ninety  souls.16 
Friday  morning,  August  3,  1492,  they  weighed  anchor  at  Palos 
and  set  out  on  a  voyage  from  which  few  of  those  who  either  went 
or  remained  behind  believed  they  would  ever  return.  For  more 
than  a  month  the  fleet  was  delayed  at  one  of  the  Canary  Islands 
by  an  accident  to  the  rudder  of  the  Pinta,  which  necessitated  re- 
pairs. Something  was  known  of  the  volcanoes  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, especially  of  Mt.  iEtna,  yet  the  eruption  of  Mt.  Teneriffe 
on  one  of  the  Canaries  threw  them  into  consternation.  The  de- 
flection of  the  needle  from  the  north  star  alarmed  the  pilots;  they 
were  unacquainted  with  the  trade  winds,  and  the  constant  blowing 
of  these  from  one  direction  brought  on  the  fear  that  they  would 
never  change. 

But  no  terror  could  shake  the  purpose  of  the  admiral,  and 
he  kept  on  his  way  undisturbed.  The  strain  gradually  became 
greater,  and  soon  there  were  grumblings  and  plottings  to  throw 
the  admiral  overboard  or  otherwise  dispose  of  him.  But  they  were 
quieted  by  the  soothing  promises  of  their  captain,  who  reminded 
them  of  their  rewards  in  case  of  success.  Week  after  week  passed 
with  no  sight  of  land,  though  tropical  birds  flying  overhead  and 
floating  seaweed  raised  the  hope  that  it  was  not  far  off.  On  Sep- 
tember 25,  Pinzon,  who  commanded  the  Pinta,  raised  the  cry, 
"  Land,  land ! "  The  night  was  spent  in  rejoicing  and  giving 
thanks  to  God,  but  the  next  morning  the  land  had  disappeared  — 
it  was  only  a  mirage.  The  crew  became  more  and  more  convinced 
that  they  were  venturing  into  a  world  of  enchantment.  Columbus 
himself  was  puzzled.  He  had  supposed  that  twenty-five  hundred 
miles  of  sailing  would  bring  him  to  Cipango,  yet  he  had  sailed 
twenty-seven  hundred  miles  only  to  find  himself  still  on  the  Sea 

"Thatcher,  "Christopher  Columbus,"  vol.  i.  p.  490. 

18  This  is  the  number  given  by  Las  Casas ;  Oviedo  says  the  number  was  120; 
among  the  crew  were  the  three  Pinzon  brothers,  Juan  do  la  Cosa,  a  Jewish  inter- 


EXPLORATIONS  31 

1492 

of  Darkness.  October  7  Pinzon  induced  him  to  change  his  course 
to  the  southwest.  The  many  small  birds  flying  in  that  direction 
held  out  the  hope  that  land  was  to  be  found  in  that  quarter.  Four 
days  later  the  signs  of  land  were  so  unmistakable  that  not  even 
the  mutinous  crew  could  doubt  any  longer.  That  night  not  an 
eye  was  closed  in  sleep,  but  everyone  was  steadily  gazing  forward 
in  the  hope  of  descrying  land.  About  ten  o'clock  the  admiral, 
standing  on  the  top  of  the  castle  of  the  Santa  Maria  and  eagerly 
peering  into  the  darkness,  saw  a  light  in  the  distance  describing 
a  waving  line  as  though  carried  by  someone  walking.  When  the 
dawn  came,  October  12,  1492  (old  style),  it  revealed  a  coast  line 
covered  with  trees,  only  a  few  miles  distant. 

Many  natives,  "  as  naked  as  when  their  mother  bore  them," 
had  gathered  on  the  shore  to  watch  the  caravels,  which  they  took 
to  be  white-winged  birds.  As  Columbus,  clad  in  scarlet  and  car- 
rying the  standard  of  Spain,  made  for  the  shore  accompanied  by 
Pinzon  and  a  few  others,  they  fled  in  terror.  On  reaching  the 
land  the  admiral  burst  into  tears,  kissed  the  ground  and  gave 
thanks  to  God  for  the  supposed  realization  of  his  long  cherished 
dream.  Drawing  his  sword,  he  took  possession  in  the  name  of 
the  sovereigns  of  Spain.  The  natives  called  the  island  Guana- 
hani;  Columbus  called  it  San  Salvador  (Holy  Savior).  It  was 
one  of  the  Bahama  group,  probably  Watling  Island.17 

Columbus  supposed  that  he  was  in  the  Indies,  not  far  from 
some  of  the  great  cities  of  the  Grand  Khan.  The  naked  savages 
did  not  correspond  to  the  descriptions  of  Marco  Polo,  nevertheless 
he  called  them  "  Indians/'  a  name  which  the  aboriginal  inhabitants 
of  America  have  ever  since  borne.  Cathay  could  not  be  far  away, 
still  he  would  not  trust  to  them  for  delivering  his  letter  to  the 
Grand  Khan.  "  Directly  I  reached  the  Indies  in  the  first  isle  I 
discovered,"  says  Columbus,  "  I  took  by  force  some  of  the  natives 
that  from  them  we  might  gain  some  information  of  what  there 
was  in  these  parts;  and  so  it  was  that  we  understood  each  other, 
either  by  words  or  signs."  When  asked  where  gold  was  to  be 
found  they  always  pointed  to  the  south. 

Leaving  San  Salvador,  Columbus  cruised  about  for  several 

preter,  two  Englishmen,  and  one  Irishman.    In  addition  to  the  complement  of 
sailors  some  authorities  state  that  thirty  adventurers  accompanied  the  expedition. 
17  Markham.  "  Life  of  Columbus,"  p.    100  et  seq.     For  contrary  views   see 
biographies  of  Columbus  by  Harrisse  and  Winsor. 


32  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1492-1493 

weeks  and  discovered  Cuba  and  Hayti ;  the  latter  he  named  His- 
paniola.  On  the  shoals  of  this  island  his  largest  vessel,  the  Santa 
Maria,  was  wrecked.  Columbus  then  bethought  himself  of  home 
and  the  wonderful  story  he  had  to  relate  to  his  sovereign.  The 
material  of  the  wrecked  vessel  was  used  to  construct  a  rude  build- 
ing in  which  forty-four  men,  supplied  with  food,  seed  and  tools, 
agreed  to  remain  and  await  the  return  of  the  admiral ;  the  rest 
embarked  for  Spain,  January  4.  taking  ten  of  the  natives,  a  quantity 
of  gold  and  other  trophies  with  them.18  The  return  voyage  was 
stormy  and  eventful.  The  two  vessels  were  driven  apart  to  meet 
no  more  until  they  sailed  into  the  harbor  of  Palos  on  the  same  day, 
March  15,  1493,  onh  a  ^ew  hours  apart.  Thus  was  completed 
the  most  momentous  voyage  in  all  history.  Had  Columbus  reached 
India  and  opened  up  a  new  route  to  the  ancient  civilization  of 
Cathay,  it  would  have  been  a  great  accomplishment;  but  he  had 
done  more  than  this;  he  had  discovered  a  new  world  without 
knowing  it,  one  where  civilization  was  to  gain  a  new  foothold,  take 
on  new  life  and  advance  by  leaps  and  bounds  such  as  it  had  never 
known  before. 

Columbus  soon  informed  the  king  and  queen  of  his  return, 
and,  after  having  given  due  notice  of  his  discovery  to  the  Pope, 
they  at  once  commanded  his  presence  at  Barcelona.  The  news  of 
his  return  rapidly  spread;  the  country  was  wild  with  enthusiasm, 
the  whole  population  turned  out  to  greet  him,  and  his  journey 
hither  was  a  triumphal  march.  His  reception  by  the  king  and 
queen  was  made  a  great  state  occasion,  perhaps  the  greatest  Spain 
had  even  known,  and  Columbus  was  accorded  the  highest  dis- 
tinction that  could  be  shown  to  a  Spanish  subject;  yet  he  is  said 
to  have  borne  these  honors  with  all  due  modesty. 

As  Spain  was  now  becoming  the  rival  of  Portugal  as  a 
claimant  for  lands  hitherto  unknown,  something  had  to  be  done 
to  prevent  disputes  from  arising.  A  very  simple  solution  was 
found  by  appealing  to  Pope  Alexander  VI..  who  issued  two  bulls. 
May  3  and  4.  1493,  establishing  a  "Line  of  Demarcation,"  or,  in 
modern  phrase,  creating  two  spheres  of  influence  in  which  the  right 
of  discovery  would  give  unquestioned  title.  At  first  this  imaginary 
line  was  drawn  from  pole  to  pole  one  hundred  leagues  west  of 
the  Azores  and  Cape  Verde  Islands ;  Portugal  to  have  all  the  lands 
east  of  the  line,  and  Spain  those  to  the  west.     There  was  dissat- 

18  E.  G.  Bourne,  "  Spain  in   America."  p.  27. 


EXPLORATIONS  33 

1493-1498 

isfaction  with  the  arrangement.,  however,  and  in  consequence  it 
was  agreed  by  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas  between  Spain  and  Portu- 
gal, June  7,  1494,  that  the  line  of  demarcation  should  be  changed 
to  370  leagues  west  of  the  Cape  Verde  Islands.19  This  gave  Spain 
all  the  New  World  except  the  eastern  part  of  Brazil,  assigned  to 
Portugal  —  a  very  simple  arrangement  if  only  the  rest  of  the 
world  would  acquiesce. 

Columbus  was  now  eager  for  a  second  voyage,  and  Ferdinand 
and  Isabella  were  no  less  eager  to  have  him  go,  for  he  had  prom- 
ised them  all  the  gold,  spices,  cotton,  mastic  and  lignaloe  they 
desired  and  as  many  slaves  as  they  cared  to  send  for,  all  heathens. 
On  September  25,  1493,  tne  admiral,  accompanied  by  his  brother 
Bartholomew7  and  Ponce  de  Leon,  of  later  fame,  set  out  from  Cadiz 
with  seventeen  vessels  and  1500  men,  soldiers,  missionaries,  ar- 
tisans, etc.,  and  once  more  turned  his  face  to  the  west.  Brood 
mares,  sheep,  cattle,  farm  implements,  tools,  seed  and  all  the  para- 
phernalia of  colony  planting  were  taken  along  with  the  evident 
intention  of  making  a  permanent  settlement  in  the  New  World. 
He  first  sought  out  the  little  colony  of  forty-four  men  left  behind  on 
his  first  voyage,  but  found  no  record  of  them  save  their  bones, 
which  lay  bleaching  in  the  tropical  sun.  Not  a  man  had  survived. 
But  the  undaunted  admiral  founded  another  colony,  this  time  in 
San  Domingo,  December,  1493,  an<J  sPent  three  years  in  cruising 
about  and  exploring  the  islands  of  the  West  Indies,  as  they  later 
came  to  be  called.  He  returned  to  Spain  in  December,  1496,  leav- 
ing his  brother  Bartholomew  in  control  of  the  colony  at  Espafiola. 
On  a  third  voyage  (1498)  he  discovered  Trinidad  and  anchored 
in  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  where  he  first  beheld  the  mainland 
of  the,  as  yet.  unnamed  continent.  The  magnitude  of  the  river 
and  the  luxuriant  growth  of  the  tropical  forest  led  him  to  think 
that  this  might  be  one  of  the  great  rivers  of  the  Garden  of  Eden 
mentioned  in  the  Bible. 

The  great  explorer  had  tasted  of  adversity  and  had  drunk  of 
the  cup  of  the  highest  success,  but  his  last  days  were  to  be  like  unto 
his  first.  Malice,  hatred,  and  envy  had  done  their  work  at  home, 
where  jealous  enemies  had  belittled  his  discoveries  and  represented 
to  the  king  and  queen  that  he  was  a  tyrant  incapable  of  governing 
colonies.  A  viceroy  was  sent  out  to  investigate.  He  exceeded  his 
instructions  and  sent  Columbus  home  in  irons.  The  story  of  his 
19  Thatcher.  "  Life  of  Columbus,"  vol.  ii.  pp.   124  ct  seq. 


34  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1497-1506 

wrongs  and  the  sight  of  his  sufferings  moved  the  queen  to  tears. 
He  was  released  and  restored  to  royal  favor,  but  was  not  rein- 
stated in  his  position  as  governor  of  the  colony,  and,  if  the  truth 
must  be  told,  he  was  ill-fitted  for  the  position.  A  fourth  voyage, 
in  the  course  of  which  he  discovered  the  coast  of  Honduras,  added 
little  to  his  fame.  With  indomitable  spirit  he  kept  planning  still 
greater  things  for  the  country  which  repaid  him  only  with  neg- 
lect; but  old  age,  anxiety  and  exposure  had  broken  his  strength. 
May  20,  1506,  he  breathed  his  last  at  Valladolid,  without  knowing 
that  he  had  discovered  a  New  World,  and  before  he  had  realized 
how  utter  was  the  wreck  of  his  hope  and  ambitions.20 

The  simple  arrangement  of  Spain  and  Portugal  by  which  the 
choicest  domains  of  the  world  were  parceled  out  between  them 
was  not  acquiesced  in  by  the  rest  of  Europe.  Henry  VII.  of  Eng- 
land, in  particular,  was  chagrined  at  having  let  the  prize  slip  from 
his  grasp  by  refusing  the  aid  which  Columbus  had  asked,  and 
now  when  John  Cabot,  a  naturalized  citizen  from  Venice  of  the 
Jersey  Norman  race,  and,  like  the  great  discoverer,  born  in  Genoa, 
applied  for  permission  to  search  for  the  all-sea  route  to  India,  the 
request  was  readily  granted.  The  permit,  dated  March  5,  1496, 
granted  to  the  patentees  and  their  assigns  forever  the  exclusive 
right  of  frequenting  all  the  countries  they  might  discover,  in 
return  for  which  the  king  was  to  receive  one-fifth  of  all  their 
gains  and  Bristol  was  to  be  their  only  port  of  entry.  Thus  was 
begun  the  system  of  commercial  restriction  which  ended  only  with 
the  revolution,  nearly  three  hundred  years  later. 

The  voyage  was  delayed  over  a  year,  but  finally  in  May,  1497, 
Cabot,  with  a  single  vessel  and  eighteen  men,  set  sail  from  Bristol 
on  his  perilous  quest.  The  patent  included  Cabot's  three  sons, 
but  it  is  not  definitely  known  whether  any  of  them  sailed  with  him 
or  not,  although  it  is  probable  that  Sebastian  went.  In  June, 
1497,  Cabot  landed  somewhere  on  the  coast  of  Labrador  or  about 
the  mouth  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  possibly  on  Cape  Breton 
Island  or  Newfoundland,  believing,  of  course,  that  he  had  reached 
the  shores  of  the  territory  of  the  Grand  Khan.  After  an  absence 
of  only  three  months,  during  which  time  he  sailed  along  the  coast 
for  some  300  leagues  without  seeing  an  inhabitant  or  attempting 
to  land,21  he  returned  to  England,  where  he  was  given  a  popular 

20  Charming,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  25. 

21  Weare,  "  Cabot's  Discovery,"  p.  143  e t  scq. 


EXPLORATIONS  35 

1499-1507 

reception  very  much  like  that  accorded  to  Columbus  in  Spain,  and 
was,  moreover,  rewarded  with  a  pension  of  £20  per  year.  The 
following  year  (1498)  he  made  a  second  voyage  and  coasted 
down  the  shore  of  the  United  States  as  far  as  Cape  Hatteras, 
some  say  to  Florida,  again  believing  that  he  was  on  the  shore  of 
Cipango  or  Cathay.22  These  voyages  were  the  basis  of  the  Eng- 
lish claim  to  North  America. 

Such  is  the  story  now  generally  accepted  by  historians.  For 
many  years  the  credit  for  these  voyages,  or  at  least  the  second,  was 
accorded  to  Sebastian  Cabot,  but  it  now  seems  certain  that  his  father 
commanded  both.23  Sebastian  was  a  great  navigator,  later  became 
chief  hydrographer  to  the  King  of  Spain,  and  probably  began  that 
fruitless  search  for  a  northwest  passage  to  India  in  which  so  many 
fortunes  and  lives  were  lost;  but  the  glory  of  discovering  North 
America  belongs  to  his  father,  John  Cabot.  These  voyages  cre- 
ated a  good  deal  of  excitement  in  England,  but  brought  no  gold 
and  the  excitement  soon  died  down  . 

As  mariner  after  mariner  sailed  into  the  west,  it  at  last  dawned 
upon  Europe  that  a  new  world  had  been  found.  The  first  to  use 
this  term  was  Amerigo  Vespucci,  or  Americus  Vespucius,  another 
Italian,  a  native  of  Florence,  but  resident  at  Seville,  who  had  made 
at  least  four  voyages  across  the  Atlantic  between  1499  and  1503. 
His  account  of  the  "  New  World  "  ("  Mundus  Novus"),  published 
in  a  pamphlet  and  translated  into  many  languages,  created  some- 
thing of  a  sensation  in  Europe,  for  he  asserted  that  the  new 
continent  was  more  populous  and  more  desirable  as  a  place  in 
which  to  live  than  either  Europe,  Asia,  or  Africa.  The  fame  of 
Columbus  was  already  in  eclipse.  In  1507  a  German  professor, 
Waldseemijller,  in  a  little  college  of  St.  Die  in  Lorraine,  the  same 
place  at  which  Cardinal  d'Ailly  had  written  his  "  Imago  Mundi," 
published  a  pamphlet  entitled  "  Cosmographic  Introductions,"  in 
which  he  suggested  that  this  New  World  be  called  America,  in 
honor  of  its  discoverer,  Americus  Vespucius.  The  same  year 
he  used  the  name  on  a  map  which  is  still  to  be  seen  at  Wiirtem- 
burg.  Gradually  the  name  found  favor,  and  though  applied  only 
to  Brazil  at  first,  was  at  last  applied  to  all  the  western  world. 

22  Bancroft,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  10-14;  Channing, 
"History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  34;  Fiske,  "Discovery  of  America," 
vol.  ii.  ch.  vii. 

23  Winsor,  "Narrative  and  Critical  Hist.."  vol.  iii.  p.  31;  Bourne,  "Spain  in 
America,"  pp.  60-61 ;  Harrisse,  "  American  Historical  Review,"  vol.  iii.  p.  448. 


36  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1507-1513 

There  is  no  evidence  that  either  the  professor  or  Vespucius  had 
any  thought  of  depriving  Columbus  of  honors  justly  due  to  him, 
and  the  latter  in  fact  was  a  friend  of  the  admiral.24 


Ill 

SPANISH    EXPLORATIONS 

Natives  of  Italy  under  the  patronage  of  Spain  had  begun 
the  work  of  exploration  in  the  west;  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
now  took  it  up  and  carried  it  on  with  vigor.  The  chief  motive 
back  of  this  activity  was  the  "  cursed  thirst  for  gold."  Marlowe, 
in  "  Dr.  Faustus,"  well  expressed  the  spirit  of  the  age.  On  learn- 
ing that  he  has  power  to  command  spirits,  Faustus  exclaims: 

"  I'll  have  them  fly  to  India  for  gold, 
Ransack  the  ocean  for  orient  pearl, 
And  search  all  corners  of  the  new-found  world 
For  pleasant  fruits  and  princely  delicates." 

The  love  of  adventure  was  a  powerful  motive  force,  as  was  the 
sincere  desire  to  convert  the  heathen,  but  gold,  gold,  gold  was 
always  the  cry. 

The  year  15 13  saw  Vasco  Nunez  de  Balboa,  a  bankrupt  in 
both  fortune  and  patriotism,  searching  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
(probably  within  the  canal  zone  acquired  in  1904  by  the  United 
States)  for  gold  with  which  to  satisfy  his  creditors,  from  whom 
he  was  a  fugitive,  and  a  discovery  that  would  atone  for  his  treason. 
Accompanied  by  one  hundred  and  ninety-five  picked  Spaniards, 
besides  several  hundred  Indian  porters  and  dogs,  he  set  out,  Sep- 
tember 1,  on  what  is  now  regarded  as  a  wonderful  expedition, 
made  as  it  was  through  well-nigh  impenetrable  thickets,  tangled 
swamps  and  marshes  reeking  with  deadly  malaria.  Led  on  by 
the  report  of  an  Indian  that  the  yellow  metal  abounded  beyond 
the  mountains  in  the  lands  bordering  upon  a  great  sea,  in  such 
quantities  that  the  commonest  utensils  were  made  of  it,  he  climbed 
a  lofty  peak,  and,  on  the  morning  of  September  25,   1513,  while 

24  Winsor,  "Amerigo  Vespucci,"  in  "Narrative  and  Critical  Hist.."  vol.  ii. 
ch.  2.  For  scholarly  discussions  of  the  controversy  concerning  the  naming  of 
America,  see  Bourne,  "  Spain  in  America."  ch.  vii.  and  Fiske,  "  Discovery  of 
America,"  pp.   130-170. 


EXPLORATIONS  37 

1513-1521 

straining  his  eyes  to  the  south,  beheld  a  broad  expanse  of  water, 
which  he  called  the  South  Sea,  and  which,  together  with  the 
adjacent  coasts  and  islands,  he  took  possession  of  in  the  name  of 
his  master,  the  King  of  Spain.  This  was  the  most  important 
discovery  since  that  of  Columbus,  and  aroused  intense  interest  in 
Spain.  Balboa's  career,  however,  had  a  sad  ending,  for  four  years 
later  he  was  put  to  death  by  a  jealous  and  suspicious  governor, 
Pedrarias  d'Avila. 

Six  years  later  Ferdinand  Magellan,  a  native  of  Portugal, 
but  sailing  under  the  banner  of  Spain,  his  adopted  country,  set 
out  with  five  old,  half-rotten  vessels  and  about  two  hundred  and 
fifty  men,  a  considerable  portion  of  whom  were  worthless  adven- 
turers, if  not  downright  rascals,  to  find  a  water  passage  to  the 
South  Sea.  Sailing  from  Spain  in  the  autumn  of  15 19  (Sep- 
tember 20),  he  reached  the  straits  which  now  bear  his  name  thir- 
teen months  later,  after  having  long  suffered  the  pangs  of  hunger 
on  account  of  short  rations,  and  after  experiencing  a  mutiny  of 
the  crew  which  was  put  down  in  cold  blood.  Leaving  the  straits 
he  entered  the  boundless  ocean  —  the  Mar  Pacifico  —  and  steering 
northwestward  struck  out  boldly  in  search  of  new  lands.  Days, 
weeks,  and  months  passed  with  nothing  in  sight  but  the  prospects 
of  starvation.  Soon  the  crew  had  to  be  put  on  half  rations  and 
presently  the  few  rats  that  infested  the  ships  were  luxuries  at  half 
a  ducat  each.  Living  on  wormy  crumbs  and  soaked  ox  leather 
they  managed  to  keep  alive  until  the  island  of  Guam  was  reached. 
Finally,  in  April.  1521,  they  sighted  the  now  familiar  island  of 
Samar,  belonging  to  the  Philippine  group;  but  a  month  later 
Magellan  was  killed  in  a  fight  with  the  natives.  One  of  the  ships, 
the  Victoria,  finally  succeeded  in  rounding  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
and,  after  an  absence  of  three  years,  reached  Spain  with  thirty- 
one  survivors.  At  last  the  earth  had  been  circumnavigated  and 
the  globular  theory  proved  forever  beyond  further  question.  The 
voyage  thus  ended,  says  Fiske,25  was  doubtless  the  greatest  feat 
of  navigation  that  has  ever  been  performed,  and  nothing  can  be 
imagined  that  would  surpass  it  except  a  journey  to  some  other 
planet.26 

In  the  case  of  Ponce  de  Leon,  another  Spanish  explorer, 
to   the   thirst   for   gold   was   added  the   thirst   for  eternal   youth. 

23  Fiske,  "Discovery  of  America,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  184-210. 
-'"'  Bourne,  *'  Spain  in  America,'-  ch.  ix. 


38  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1513-1526 

Ponce  de  Leon  was  an  intrepid  warrior  and  explorer,  who  had 
come  out  with  Columbus  on  his  second  voyage  in  1493.  Learning 
of  an  Indian  tradition  concerning  a  wonderful  fountain  situated 
on  an  island  called  Bimini,  somewhere  to  the  north  of  San  Do- 
mingo, whose  waters,  if  drunk,  restored  the  drinker  to  eternal 
youth,  he  secured  permission  from  the  king  to  go  in  quest  of  it, 
and,  in  March,  15 13,  he  sailed  from  Porto  Rico  for  the  north. 
On  the  27th  of  the  same  month,  it  being  Easter  Sunday  (Spanish, 
Pascual  Florida),  he  came  in  sight  of  land  and  anchored  off  the 
site  of  the  future  city  of  St.  Augustine.  In  honor  of  the  day  he 
named  the  country  Florida.  In  vain  did  he  search  for  the  fabled 
fountain  and  treasures  of  gold.  After  coasting  around  the  penin- 
sula in  his  futile  quest,  he  returned  to  Porto  Rico.  Eight  years 
later  he  returned  and  tried  to  make  a  settlement,  the  first  attempt 
within  the  borders  of  the  present  United  States;  but  the  effort 
resulted  in  failure,  and,  being  attacked  and  seriously  wounded  by 
the  Indians,  he  sailed  back  to  Cuba,  where  he  died  after  prolonged 
suffering. 

In  1520  Vasquez  de  Ayllon  set  out  from  San  Domingo  with 
two  vessels  in  search  of  slaves  to  work  the  plantations  and  mines. 
He  landed  on  the  coast  of  South  Carolina  and  by  the  basest  treach- 
ery kidnaped  a  number  of  the  natives.  One  of  his  ships  foundered, 
while  the  captives  on  the  other  sickened  and  died.  He  returned 
to  Spain  and  as  a  reward  for  this  expedition  was  appointed 
(1525)  to  conquer  Chicora,  as  he  called  Carolina.  Accordingly; 
in  June.  1526,  with  three  vessels  and  some  five  or  six  hundred 
men.  De  Ayllon  set  out  on  his  voyage  of  conquest  and  settlement, 
and  in  due  course  reached  the  coast  of  what  is  now  North  Carolina 
or  Virginia.  Here  they  established  the  settlement  of  San  Miguel, 
on  the  site  of  the  future  Jamestown  as  some  historians  contend. 
The  colony,  however,  soon  succumbed  from  a  variety  of  causes, 
De  Ayllon  died,  and  the  survivors,  numbering  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  persons,  returned  to  San  Domingo. 

The  greatest,  however,  and  judged  by  modern  standards,  the 
most  infamous  of  the  Spanish  expeditions  in  the  New  World  was 
that  of  Cortes.  A  native  of  Spain,  Cortes  was  destined  for  the 
law  by  his  parents,  but  he  was  born  an  adventurer  in  an  age  of 
adventure.  At  19  he  left  Spain  for  the  New  World.  He  learned 
the  art  of  Indian  warfare  under  Velasquez  in  the  conquest  of 
Cuba    (1511),    and    when    Grijalva    discovered    Mexico    in    15 18 


EXPLORATIONS  39 

1519-1521 

Cortes  was  eager  to  possess  its  cities  of  fabulous  wealth.  The 
Mexicans  were  far  in  advance  of  the  Indians  on  the  islands  and 
on  the  continent  to  the  north  of  them.  Their  god,  Quetzalcoatl, 
so  their  tradition  said,  had  taught  them  the  arts  of  civilization, 
but  had  been  forced  to  depart  because  he  incurred  the  wrath  of  a 
higher  divinity.  On  leaving,  he  promised  that  he  and  his  de- 
scendants would  revisit  the  Mexicans  in  after  years.  The  belief 
was  now  prevalent  that  the  time  for  his  return  was  near,  and  when 
the  white  man  came,  bearing  thunder  and  lightning  in  his  hand, 
many  were  convinced  that  the  "  fair  god  "  had  returned.  Monte- 
zuma, the  emperor  of  the  Mexicans,  taking  counsel  of  his  fears, 
adopted  a  half-hearted  policy  marked  by  friendliness  and  suspicion. 
His  fate  probably  would  not  have  been  very  different  had  he 
displayed  full  confidence  in  the  invaders  or  adopted  a  policy  of 
open  hostility. 

Early  in  March,  15 19,  Cortes,  with  a  force  consisting  of 
about  500  Spaniards,  several  cannon,  and  fifteen  horses,  landed 
on  the  east  coast  of  Mexico,  and  at  once  sent  messengers  bearing 
gifts  to  Montezuma.  The  expedition  then  set  out  for  the  capital 
city  of  Montezuma's  dominion.  In  the  course  of  an  interview 
Cortes  told  the  ambassador  that  "  the  Spaniards  were  troubled 
with  a  disease  of  the  heart,  for  which  gold  was  a  specific  remedy." 
That  gold,  which  the  capital  was  reputed  to  contain,  he  had  deter- 
mined to  secure;  also  to  convert  the  heathen,  either  by  the  mouth 
of  the  priest  or  that  of  the  cannon.  With  our  modern  notions 
of  Christianity  this  sounds  very  strange;  but  with  many  of  the 
conquerors  religion  was  often  a  matter  of  faith  rather  than  of 
morals.  By  diplomacy,  by  aid  of  the  natives,  who  turned  against 
the  Mexican  emperor,  and  by  deceit  and  treachery,  he  at  last  gained 
the  capital  and  got  Montezuma  in  his  power.  By  profaning  the 
temples  in  setting  up  Christian  worship  he  turned  the  Aztecs 
against  him,  and  they  stirred  up  a  revolt  against  the  tame  sub- 
mission of  Montezuma.  Cortes  left  the  capital  in  fear,  but  soon 
returned,  and  in  August,  1521,  captured  it  after  a  long  siege.  The 
number  of  lives  lost,  mainly  Mexicans,  is  estimated  at  from  120.000 
to  240,000.  The  Spanish  loss  was  small,  as  was  their  gain  in 
booty.27 

The  enemies  of  Cortes,  meantime,  were  busy  both  at  home 

27  Winsor,  "  Cortes  and  His  Companions,"  in  "  Narrative  and  Critical  Hist.," 
vol.  ii.  ch.  vi. ;  Prescott,  "  Conquest  of  Mexico." 


40  THE     UNITED     STA  T  E  S 

1521-1528 

and  in  America,  but  Charles  V.  confirmed  his  acts  and  appointed 
him  Captain  General  and  Chief  Justice  of  New  Spain,  as  that  part 
of  the  world  was  called.  The  City  of  Mexico  was  rebuilt  on  a 
grand  scale,  and  the  system  of  repartimientos  was  adopted  by 
which  the  Indians  were  assigned  in  lots  for  work  on  the  planta- 
tions or  in  the  mines;  in  other  words,  reduced  to  slavery.  To 
the  credit  of  the  crown,  be  it  said,  that  a  decree  was  issued  an- 
nulling this,  but  the  colonists  managed  to  evade  it,  and  the  con- 
version of  the  heathen  went  on  at  a  rapid  rate,  9,000,000,  as  it 
was  enthusiastically  asserted,  in  twenty  years. 

But  it  would  be  unfair  to  judge  Cortes  by  the  standards 
of  to-day.  Prescott,  who  wrote  the  story  of  his  conquest,  says 
that  he  used  no  more  cruelty  than  was  common  at  home  and  shed 
no  more  blood  than  was  necessary  to  effect  the  conquest.  The 
conversion  of  the  heathen  was  considered  in  that  day  a  sufficient 
justification  for  the  conquest  itself,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
as  Fiske  points  out,  that  after  making  all  allowances,  the  Span- 
iards did  introduce  a  better  state  of  society  into  Mexico  than  they 
found  there,  while  Bourne  adds  that  Cortes  devoted  his  every 
energy  to  the  restoration  of  the  country  to  peaceful  prosperity. 

Pamfilo  de  Narvaez,  who  had  been  sent  from  Cuba  by  Velas- 
quez to  overtake  and  arrest  the  insubordinate  Cortes,  but  who 
had  himself  been  captured,  now  determined  to  look  farther  north 
for  fields  of  conquest,  and  in  1527  secured  from  the  king  a  grant 
of  all  the  gulf  coast  from  Mexico  to  the  cape  of  Florida.  In  June 
of  the  same  year,  with  five  ships  and  about  six  hundred  persons, 
he  set  out  on  the  voyage  and  landed  at  Tampa  Bay  in  April,  T528. 
Directing  his  ships  to  meet  him  elsewhere,  he  foolishly  pushed 
inland  through  swamps  and  jungles  in  search  of  the  gold  which 
unfortunately  was  always  just  a  little  farther  on.  The  fleet  being 
unable  to  find  the  ports  in  accordance  with  Narvaez's  instructions, 
and.  after  vainly  searching  for  him,  returned  to  Spain  a  year 
later.  The  remnant  of  his  army,  three  hundred  in  number,  pushed 
their  way  along  the  coast  through  forest  and  swamps,  harassed 
by  the  Indians  and  tortured  by  hunger  and  thirst.  Near  St. 
Marks  they  constructed  five  rude  boats  in  which  the  survivors 
(two  hundred  and  forty)  embarked  in  September  and  painfully 
threaded  their  way  along  the  coast,  one  after  another  of  their  frail 
vessels  succumbing  to  the  winter  storms.  About  eighty  of  their 
number,  destitute  and  enfeebled,  finally  succeeded  in  reaching  an 


EXPLORATIONS  41 

1528-1542 

island  off  the  coast  of  Texas.  In  the  course  of  the  winter  the  little 
band  was  reduced  by  cold  and  hunger  to  fifteen.  Cabeza  de  Vaca, 
the  treasurer  of  the  expedition  and  a  former  officer  under  Cortes, 
with  three  others,  soon  formed  the  sole  remnant  of  Narvaez's  band. 
After  eight  years  of  wandering  over  the  inhospitable  country 
between  the  Mississippi  River  and  California,  beaten  by  the  In- 
dians, suffering  the  tortures  of  hunger  and  thirst,  at  times  acting 
as  "  medicine  men,"  they  finally  reached  the  City  of  Mexico  in 
July,  1536.  The  whole  story  of  their  hardships  and  triumphs, 
of  their  perseverance  and  courage,  constitutes  one  of  the  most 
thrilling  narratives  in  the  history  of  Spanish  America.28 

The  cupidity  of  the  settlers  in  Mexico  had  been  aroused  by 
rumors  of  wealthy  cities  in  what  is  now  Arizona  and  New  Mexico, 
called  the  "  Seven  Cities  of  Cibola,"  and  several  expeditions  pushed 
out  in  that  direction.  In  1528  Cortes  sent  out  one  which  coasted 
up  the  Pacific  for  three  hundred  miles.  In  1530  another  entered 
the  Gulf  of  California  and  a  few  years  later  his  lieutenants  were 
claiming  the  peninsula  of  Lower  California  for  Cortes.  There  is 
a  tradition  that  Spanish  vessels  passed  northward  beyond  the 
mouth  of  the  Columbia,  but  there  is  no  authentic  record  of  their 
discoveries. 

The  arrival  at  Mexico  of  De  Vaca  and  his  companions 
aroused  a  new  interest  in  the  "  Seven  Cities  of  Cibola,"  for  they 
declared  that  they  had  seen  them  with  their  own  eyes.  The  in- 
habitants were  said  to  be  so  wealthy  that  their  household  utensils 
were  made  of  gold  and  silver  and  their  doorways  studded  with 
precious  gems.  Once  more  the  gold-hunters  set  out,  this  time 
led  by  Vasquez  de  Coronado,  governor  of  the  northwest  province 
of  New  Spain.  With  a  small  but  picked  band  he  set  out  in  April. 
1540,  and.  after  a  long  and  perilous  march,  in  the  course  of  which 
many  of  his  number  perished  by  the  wayside,  Coronado  reached 
the  first  of  the  fabled  "  Cities,"  only  to  find  a  village  of  thatched 
Indian  pueblos,  interesting  to  the  archaeologist  and  ethnologist  of 
to-day,  but  very  disappointing  to  Coronado,  because  they  con- 
tained neither  gold  nor  silver.  That  was  a  little  farther  on,  and 
so  he  pushed  northward  on  the  track  of  the  will-o'-the-wisp,  but 
always  with  the  same  sense  of  disillusionment.  For  three  years 
Coronado  and  his  companions  thirsted  in  the  mountains  or  toiled 

28  Read  Woodbury  Lowery.  "Spanish  Settlements  in  America,"  pp.   170  el 
seq.    Also  Smith,  "  Cabeza  de  Vaca." 


42  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1539-1542 

over  trackless  deserts  only  to  descend  into  valleys  of  hunger  and 
despair.  Northward,  still  northward,  they  pressed,  sometimes 
over  plains  "  as  full  of  crookback  oxen  as  the  mountain  Sierra  in 
Spain  is  of  sheep."  Coronado  at  last,  after  having  discovered  the 
Grand  Canon  of  Colorado,  reached  a  great  river,  probably  the 
Platte  or  Missouri,  and  turned  back  satisfied  that  the  gold  was 
to  be  found  only  at  the  end  of  the  rainbow.29  At  length,  in  the 
spring  of  1542,  he  returned  to  Mexico  greatly  chagrined  at  hav- 
ing found  no  cities  of  gold  and  to  find  himself  deposed  as  governor 
for  his  failure. 

One  more  Spanish  exploration  of  consequence  deserves  to  be 
mentioned,  that  of  Hernando  de  Soto.  De  Soto's  career  was  one 
of  the  most  romantic  of  that  romantic  period.  At  thirty-one 
( 1 53 1 )  he  found  himself  second  in  command  to  Pizarro  in  the 
conquest  of  Peru,  an  exploit  even  more  infamous  than  the  con- 
quest of  Mexico.  He  indeed  denounced  Pizarro  for  some  of  his 
acts,  but  he  remained  with  the  band  and  carried  away,  not  half  a 
million  dollars  in  spoils,  as  is  generally  asserted,  but  hardly  more, 
as  Channing  says,  than  a  paltry  hundred  thousand  ducats.30  While 
governor  of  Cuba  in  1538  he  heard  of  Florida,  and  wished  for  an 
opportunity  to  search  that  land  for  more  treasures.  With  nine 
vessels  carrying  about  six  hundred  men  and  over  two  hundred 
horses  he  set  sail  from  Havana  in  May,  1539,  and  in  due  course 
landed  on  the  coast  of  Florida,  but  instead  of  gold,  found  only 
hostile  Indians,  who  harassed  him  at  every  turn.  Proceeding 
northward  to  the  Savannah  River,  De  Soto  then  turned  westward 
and  southward  to  the  fortified  Indian  town  of  Mauvijla,  near 
the  junction  of  the  Alabama  and  Tombigbee  rivers,  where  he  was 
attacked  and  a  fourth  or  fifth  of  his  men  killed  in  the  course  of 
the  desperate  battle  which  ensued.  Thousands  of  the  Indians,  if 
we  may  believe  the  chroniclers,  were  in  turn  killed  by  the  Span- 
iards, while  the  rest  were  put  to  flight  and  their  houses  burned. 
From  Mauvilla  De  Soto  marched  in  a  northwesterly  direction 
across  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  fighting  his  way  as  he  went,  finally 
reaching  the  Mississippi  River,  near  the  present  site  of  Memphis, 
in  May,  1541.  Crossing  the  river,  he  turned  southward,  and 
after  wandering  far  to  the  west  in  the  vain  quest  for  signs  of  the 

29  Read    Bourne,    "Travels   of    Coronado,"   2    vols.,    in    the   "Trail    Makers 
Series";  also  Haynes  in  Winsor's  "Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  7. 

30  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  67. 


EXPLORATIONS  43 

1542-1598 

new  El  Dorado,  he  died  May  21,  1542,  and  his  body  was  buried 
in  the  great  river  which  he  is  said  to  have  discovered,  but  which 
we  know  De  Vaca  must  have  seen  some  ten  years  previous.  It 
was  altogether,  says  Professor  Bourne,  the  most  remarkable  expe- 
dition in  the  history  of  North  America,  though  closely  challenged 
by  the  contemporary  enterprise  of  Coronado,  which  did  for  the 
southwest  what  De  Soto  did  for  the  eastern  and  central  belt.31 

What  had  this  half  century  of  unparalleled  activity  given  to 
Spain?  In  South  America  she  claimed  practically  everything  in 
view  except  Guiana  and  Brazil,  the  latter  of  which  Cabral  had 
discovered  for  Portugal  in  1500.  In  Mexico  and  the  West  Indies 
her  sway  was  undisputed  save  by  the  savages,  but  as  yet  she  had 
no  settlements  within  the  present  limits  of  continental  United 
States.  Even  at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century  she  had  only  a 
few,  the  chief  being  St.  Augustine  (1565),  Santa  Fe  (1598),  and 
a  chain  of  missions  reaching  to  the  Gulf  of  California.32  Such 
in  brief,  were  the  results  of  Spanish  achievement  in  North 
America. 

Spain  was  at  her  zenith  at  home  as  well  as  abroad.  At  the 
beginning  of  this  activity  in  exploration  she  was  being  unified  into 
a  national  state  by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  Ferdinand  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  grandson,  Charles  I.,  who,  on  becoming  German 
emperor  in  15 19,  took  the  title  of  Charles  V.  Actual  ruler  of 
Spain,  Austria,  the  Netherlands,  and  the  two  Sicilies,  and  titular 
head  of  all  the  Germans,  he  yet  took  as  his  motto,  "  Plus  ultra." 

For  the  government  of  the  Spanish- American  colonies  there 
was  a  Council  of  the  Indies,  through  which  the  king  made  all  laws 
relating  to  them.  Every  colonial  officer  was  subordinate  to  it. 
Under  the  direction  of  the  king  it  exercised  supreme  legislative 
and  judicial  control  of  Spanish  America.  It  served  also  as  an 
advisory  or  nominating  board  in  regard  to  all  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
appointments  in  America,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  Eng- 
lish Board  of  Trade  and  Plantations.  The  colonies  themselves 
were  divided  into  two  great  provinces :  Mexico  or  New  Spain,  in- 
cluding Venezuela;  and  Peru  comprising  the  rest  of  South  Amer- 

31  Read  Bourne,  "Spain  in  America,"  p.  168;  also  King,  "  De  Soto  in 
Florida  " ;  Winship,  "  The  Journey  of  De  Soto,"  in  the  "  Trail  Makers  Series  " ; 
Lowery,  "  Spanish  Settlements  in  America,"  pp.  235  et  seq.;  and  Bandelier, 
"  Contributions   to   Southwestern  History." 

32  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  ii. 


44  THE     UNITED     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1598 

ica  except  Brazil.  Legally,  they  did  not  belong  to  Spain,  but  were 
a  part  of  the  hereditary  domains  of  the  sovereigns  of  Castile  as 
heirs  of  Queen  Isabella,  and  the  Spanish  Parliament  had  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  them. 

Each  was  governed  by  a  viceroy,  who  acted  as  the  personal 
representative  of  the  king,  and  each  was  subdivided  for  adminis- 
trative purposes  into  a  number  of  audicncias  or  Supreme  Court 
districts.  At  the  expiration  of  their  terms  of  office  the  viceroys 
were  compelled  to  submit  to  an  inquest  into  their  official  conduct. 
They  were  further  checked  by  councils  or  audiencias,  which  at  the 
same  time  served  as  the  highest  colonial  courts  of  appeal.  Jeal- 
ousy of  the  power  of  these  viceroys  caused  their  removal  every 
few  years,  hence  they  sought  to  make  their  fortunes  quickly.  The 
cities  were  allowed  town  councils,  the  only  measure  of  local  self- 
government  recognized  in  America.  The  councils  consisted  of 
regidores  or  aldermen,  and  a  number  of  alcaldes  or  justices,  the 
latter  elected  by  the  former.  The  public  offices  were  generally 
sold  for  cash  and  this  was  one  of  the  regular  sources  of  govern- 
ment revenue.  Xo  Spaniard  born  in  the  colony  was  eligible  to 
any  office.  The  population  was  a  superposition  of  castes.  The 
colonists  were  forbidden  to  cultivate  European  products,  to  manu- 
facture goods,  or  construct  ships,  and  all  commerce  was  monopo- 
lized by  a  few  opulent  houses  at  Seville.  At  first  an  effort  was 
made  to  use  the  Indians  as  laborers,  but  it  was  found  to  mean 
their  destruction.  Hispaniola  is  reputed  to  have  had  1,000,000 
inhabitants  in  1492;  nineteen  years  later  14,000.  From  the  begin- 
ning the  conversion  of  the  Indians  to  Christianity  was  one  of  the 
dominant  motives  of  Spanish  policy.  Following  upon  the  heels 
of  conquest  came  an  army  of  indefatigable  friars  who  devoted 
themselves  assiduously  to  preaching,  baptizing  and  learning  the 
native  tongue. 

Every  village,  whether  Indian  or  Spanish,  was  required  by 
law  to  maintain  a  church,  hospital,  and  school  for  the  instruction 
of  native  children  in  the  Spanish  language  and  religion.  Con- 
verted Indians  were  gathered  together  in  villages  called  missions, 
where,  under  the  direction  of  the  friars,  they  were  taught  to  live 
industrious,  peaceful,  religious  lives.  Every  mission  thus  became 
an  industrial  school  and  in  time  the  whole  of  Spanish-America 
was  dotted  with  such  institutions,  where  tens  of  thousands  of 
Indians  went  through  a   process  of   schooling  which  ended  only 


EXPLORATIONS  45 

1598 

with  their  lives.  The  government  was  apparently  extremely  so- 
licitous for  the  education  of  the  natives  and  it  is  the  opinion  of 
careful  investigators  that  the  efforts  made  by  Spain  for  its  pro- 
motion greatly  exceeded  anything  attempted  by  the  English  gov- 
ernment in  its  American  colonies.  Indian  boys  were  taught  to 
read  and  write  the  Spanish  language  and  to  become  tailors,  car- 
penters, blacksmiths,  and  shoemakers.  Higher  institutions  of 
learning  were  established  in  various  places,  and  in  number,  range 
of  studies  and  standard  of  attainments  they  probably  surpassed 
anything  of  the  kind  in  English- America  before  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. Especially  in  Mexico  were  the  achievements  in  medicine, 
surgery,  linguistics,  anthropology  and  history  of  a  notable  char- 
acter. Dictionaries,  grammars,  and  histories  of  Mexican  institu- 
tions testify  to  the  intellectual  activity  and  industry  of  the  Spanish 
scholars.  In  Peru  the  University  of  Lima  had  at  one  time  over 
two  thousand  students  and  some  two  hundred  doctors  of  theology, 
law  and  medicine. 

In  spite  of  the  restrictions  upon  foreign  trade,  Spanish  manu- 
factures formed  hardly  one  tenth  of  the  importations  into  the 
colonies  —  the  rest  were  smuggled.  The  population  of  Spain  was 
decimated  by  continual  wars  and  by  immigration  to  the  colonies. 
Military  adventurers  and  the  idleness  of  the  aristocracy  suspended 
labor.  Spain  ceased  to  produce  her  own  necessities  and  bought 
them  of  other  countries  with  the  gold  and  silver  poured  into  her 
lap  by  her  American  mines.  Humboldt  estimated  the  average 
annual  output  of  the  mines  at  6,000,000  pesos  during  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  at  33,000,000  during  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth,  while  the  total  yield  from  1493  to  x8o3  he  put  at 
5,706,700,000  pesos,  or  about  ten  times  the  known  production  of 
the  rest  of  the  world.  Spanish  galleons  laden  with  the  precious 
metals  were  naturally  the  envy  of  other  nations  and  were  con- 
stantly preyed  upon  by  their  daring  corsairs,  even  when  the  nations 
were  not  at  war  on  land.  But  those  which  reached  her  ports  only 
contributed  to  her  downfall  by  teaching  her  people  to  put  their 
trust  in  gold,  then  thought  to  be  true  wealth,  instead  of  in  the 
fruits  of  industry. 

It  is  generally  asserted  by  historians  that  the  Spanish  colonies 
were  oppressed  and  exploited  by  the  mother  country,  but  according 
to  Professor  E.  G.  Bourne,  a  careful  investigator  and  writer  on 
Spanish   rule   in   America,   these    facts   have  been   greatly   exag- 


46  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1524-1562 

gerated.  This  writer's  conclusions  are  substantially  as  follows: 
Justice  was  slow  and  uncertain;  the  evidence  of  financial  corrup- 
tion, especially  of  judicial  bribery,  is  abundant,  but  all  things  con- 
sidered, Spanish-America  was  quite  as  well  governed  as  was  Spain, 
and  was  on  the  whole  more  prosperous,  and  at  no  time  in  the 
history  of  Mexico,  up  to  within  the  last  quarter  of  a  century, 
has  the  government  been  so  good  as  her  people  enjoyed  under 
the  able  viceroys  sent  over  by  the  kings  of  Spain.33 


IV 

EXPLORATIONS   OF   THE   FRENCH 

The  King  of  France  declared  that  he  would  not  respect  the 
Papal  "  Line  of  Demarcation "  unless  authority  for  it  could  be 
traced  back  to  Adam's  will,  and  attracted  by  the  hope  of  fish  and 
furs  Frenchmen  soon  began  to  frequent  the  coasts  of  northeastern 
America.  The  French  king  also  entertained  the  belief  that  the 
passage  to  Cathay  and  India  lay  in  this  direction,  and  so  in  1524 
he  sent  out  Giovanni  Verrazano,  a  native  of  Florence  and  a  daring 
corsair  and  explorer,  to  find  the  coveted  route.  Verrazano 
crossed  the  Atlantic,  sighted  the  shores  of  what  is  now  North 
Carolina  and  explored  the  coast  as  far  north  as  New  England, 
after  which  he  disappeared  from  view,  how  or  where  no  one 
knows.  In  1534  another  Frenchman,  Jacques  Cartier,  explored 
the  coasts  and  islands  about  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and  the 
following  year  sailed  up  the  St.  Lawrence  River  as  far  as  the 
rapids,  where  he  named  the  hill  on  the  northern  bank  Mount  Royal 
(Montreal),  near  which  was  situated  the  Indian  village  of  Hochel- 
aga.  Six  years  later  he  and  Roberval,  a  nobleman  of  France, 
attempted  to  plant  a  colony  on  this  river,  but  they  did  not  work 
together  harmoniously  and  the  attempt  ended  in  disaster.  Other 
Frenchmen  came  to  these  northern  regions  to  engage  in  the  fish 
and  pelt  industry,  but  the  sixteenth  century  ended  without  any 
successful  colonization.  The  French  next  turned  south  in  search 
of  a  more  hospitable  clime. 

Here  they  might  have  succeeded  but  for  the  criminal  neglect 

53  See    Bourne,   "  Spain    in   America,"   chs.    xix-xx.,   from   which   the    facts 
above  stated  are  mainly  drawn. 


EXPLORATIONS  47 

1562-1565 

of  their  government.  In  1562  Admiral  Coligny,  the  leader  of  the 
Huguenots,  as  the  French  Protestants  were  called,  sent  out  an 
expedition  under  Jean  Ribaut,  a  seaman  of  renown  in  his  day, 
who  discovered  St.  John's  River  and  sailed  northward,  naming 
the  country  Carolina,  in  honor  of  Charles  IX.,  King  of  France. 
A  colony  of  twenty-six  persons  was  established  at  Port  Royal, 
near  the  modern  Beaufort,  but  the  following  year,  after  an  experi- 
ence marked  by  hunger,  mutiny  and  bloodshed,  the  settlers  fol- 
lowed their  leader  home,  only  to  be  captured  by  an  English  cruiser. 
Laudoniere  then  (1564),  under  the  patronage  of  the  king,  sought 
the  Carolina  coast  with  a  company  of  Protestants,  who  established 
themselves  on  the  St.  John's  River.  The  colonists  were  a  dissolute 
set,  many  of  them  European  jail-birds,  who  were  then  thought  to 
be  good  material  for  colonists,  and  they  gave  the  governor  no 
little  trouble.  A  piratical  expedition  which  some  of  them  organ- 
ized against  the  Spanish  betrayed  the  presence  of  the  little  colony. 
Those  who  escaped  the  Spanish  sword  and  the  governor's  gibbet 
were  soon  reduced  to  dire  straits  by  their  own  improvidence  and 
by  their  bad  treatment  of  the  Indians,  who  had  at  first  received 
them  kindly.  August,  1565,  Sir  John  Hawkins,  an  English  slave 
trader,  entered  the  St.  John's  River,  and  sold  the  Frenchmen  one 
of  the  vessels  in  exchange  for  their  heavy  guns.  They  had  in- 
tended returning  home,  but  before  they  started  Ribaut  arrived 
with  fresh  supplies. 

The  Spanish  had  not  succeeded  in  colonizing  Florida,  but 
they  were  determined  not  to  give  it  up,  and  Pedro  Menendez  de 
Aviles,  "  the  bloodiest  Spaniard  who  ever  cursed  American  soil," 
says  Channing,  "  and  one  of  the  ablest,"  34  was  commissioned  to 
destroy  the  French  colony  on  the  St.  John's,  and  for  this  purpose 
a  fleet  of  nineteen  vessels  and  fifteen  hundred  men  was  placed  at 
his  command.  After  founding  a  colony  to  the  south  of  them 
as  a  base  of  operations  he  proceeded  to  "  gibbet  and  behead  all 
the  Protestants  "  in  that  region,  with  the  savage  cruelty  charac- 
teristic of  the  Spaniards  in  that  age.35  Philip  II.  approved  the 
action  of  Menendez,  and  wrote  the  following  endorsement  on  one 
of  the  latter's  dispatches :  "  Say  to  him,  that  as  to  those  he  has 
killed,  he  has  done  well,  and  as  to  those  he  has  saved,  they  shall 
be  sent  to  the  galleys."     Thus  did  Spain  make  good  her  claim 

34  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  98. 

35  Read  Parkman,  "  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World,"  chs.  vii.-viii. 


48  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1565-1603 

to  North  America  and  crush  the  first  attempt  of  the  French  to 
gain  a  foothold  in  Florida. 

The  town  which  Menendez  founded  in  this  region  was  named 
St.  Augustine  ( 1 565 )  and  was  the  first  permanent  settlement 
within  the  limits  of  continental  United  States.  But  it  came  near 
being  wiped  out  of  existence  two  years  later  in  a  terrible  retribu- 
tion which  Dominic  de  Gourgues,  a  daring  soldier  of  Gascony, 
sought  to  inflict  in  revenge  for  the  massacre  of  his  fellow  country- 
men. He  destroyed  all  the  settlements  left  by  Menendez,  except 
St.  Augustine,  hanged  his  prisoners  to  a  tree  and  sailed  back  to 
France  in  triumph.  The  King  of  France,  as  already  stated,  did 
not  even  protest  against  this  cruel  act  of  Menendez,  although  the 
blood  of  hundreds  of  loyal  Frenchmen  had  cried  from  the  ground 
for  retribution.  But  the  victims  of  Menendez's  ferocity  were  to 
his  Catholic  majesty  only  despised  Huguenots,  intruders  in  hisi 
realm  and  followers  of  the  hated  Coligny,  and  so  they  were  left  to 
their  fate  by  an  unnatural  sovereign.  But  at  last  they  had  found 
a  powerful  avenger,  and  although  the  king-  could  and  did  disavow 
his  acts,  he  could  not  undo  them.  The  chivalrous  annals  of 
France,  says  Parkman,  may  be  searched  in  vain  for  a  deed  of  more 
romantic  daring  than  the  vengeance  of  Dominic  de  Gourgues.36 

Later  in  the  century  exploration  and  colonization  were  again 
taken  up  at  the  north,  for  here  seemed  to  lie  the  hope  of  French 
colonization.  The  fur  trade  was  found  very  lucrative  and  received 
no  little  attention,  while  the  fisheries  grew  steadily  in  importance. 
In  1578  there  were  not  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  French 
fishing  vessels  at  Newfoundland,  besides  two  hundred  of  other 
nations.  Rude  huts  were  springing  up  along  the  shores  of  Anti 
Costi,  and  were  becoming  centers  of  the  far  more  lucrative  trade 
in  bear  skins  and  beaver  skins.  French  merchants  and  adventurers 
were  turning  their  eyes  toward  these  regions,  not  like  the  Span- 
iards seeking  gold  and  silver,  but  the  more  modest  gains  of  fish, 
oil  and  peltries. 

In  1603  Samuel  de  Champlain,  one  of  the  most  remarkable 

36  Parkman,  "  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New  World,"  p.  139.  Lossing  says 
that  De  Gourgues  was  himself  a  Catholic.  It  appears  that  during  the  Italian 
wars  he  was  taken  prisoner  by  the  Spaniards  and  condemned  to  the  galleys. 
This  humiliation  gave  him  for  that  nation  an  implacable  hatred.  In  equipping 
his  expedition,  however,  the  personal  resentment  was  concealed.  Those  who 
knew  his  intentions  regarded  him  as  serving  his  king  and  country.  Though  his 
head  was  demanded  by  the  Spanish  ambassador,  he  escaped  the  fate  of  Raleigh. 


EXPLORATIONS 


1603-1604 


49 


Frenchmen  of  his  day,  says  John  Fiske,  and  a  French  explorer  of 
indomitable  perseverance  and  great  merit,  who  years  before  had 
gone  on  a  voyage  to  the  West  Indies,  sailed  up  the  St.  Lawrence 
past  Mount  Royal;  but  being  unable  to  ascend  the  rapids,  turned 
back  and  recrossed  the  Atlantic  to  France.  His  curiosity  still 
unsated,  he  came  out  again  next  year  with  Sieur  de  Monts,  who 
had  secured  from  the  king  an  appointment  as  Lieutenant-General 
or  Viceroy  of  Acadia,  as  the  English  called  the  country  from  the 
fortieth  to  the  forty-sixth  parallel  of  north  latitude.     At  the  same 


Route  of  Samuel  de  Champlain 


time  De  Monts  was  given  a  monopoly  of  the  fur  trade  in  all  this 
vast  region.37 

In  April,  1604.  De  Monts  and  Champlain  sailed  from  Havre 
de  Grace  with  two  ships,  carrying  the  material  for  the  proposed 
colony,  which  consisted  of  a  curious  mixture  of  gentlemen,  thieves, 
and  vagabonds  mainly  impressed  from  the  streets  of  French  cities. 
The  voyagers  proceeded  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  thence  to  the  Passa- 
maquoddy  Bay  and  finally  to  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Croix  River, 
where  they  made  a  settlement  which  was  identified  nearly  two 
37  See  H.  P.  Biggar,  "  Early  Trading  Companies  of  New  France,"  ch.  iv. 


50  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1604-1628 

hundred  years  later  at  the  time  of  the  dispute  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  over  the  northeastern  boundary. 
The  colonists  soon  abandoned  this  cold,  inhospitable  site,  or  rather 
the  remnant  of  them  who  were  left  after  pestilence  had  carried 
off  a  considerable  portion  of  their  number  crossed  the  Bay  of 
Fundy  and  settled  Port  Royal,  now  Annapolis,  which  proved  to  be 
the  first  permanent  French  settlement  in  America. 

After  several  unimportant  exploring  expeditions  along  the 
northeastern  shores,  Champlain  returned  to  France.  But  again 
in  1608  we  find  him  on  his  way  to  America,  this  time  in  the 
three-fold  character  of  explorer,  colonizer  and  fur  trader.  Sailing 
up  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  he  planted  a  settlement  on  the  present 
site  of  the  city  of  Quebec  and  left  a  garrison  in  possession  of  the 
post,  but  all  except  eight  of  them  died  during  the  winter  of  1608- 
1609.  During  the  winter  Champlain  with  a  party  of  Canadian 
Indians  made  an  expedition  into  the  wilderness  of  what  is  now 
northern  New  York  for  the  purpose  of  making  war  on  the  Iro- 
quois, the  most  powerful  confederation  in  America.  During  the 
course  of  the  expedition  Champlain  discovered  the  beautiful  lake 
that  has  ever  since  borne  his  name.  Coming  up  with  an  Iroquois 
war  party,  he  attacked  them,  and  after  a  sharp  battle  drove  them 
from  the  field.  This  incident  was  destined  to  have  important  con- 
sequences in  the  history  of  the  struggle  between  France  and  Eng- 
land in  America;  was,  in  truth,  one  of  the  greatest  cardinal  facts 
of  American  history  down  to  1763.38  It  implanted  in  the  hearts 
of  the  Iroquois  an  implacable  hatred  for  the  French,  while,  as  a 
result  of  the  very  different  treatment  accorded  to  them  by  Henry 
Hudson,  who  came  into  relations  with  the  Iroquois  a  few  weeks 
after  Champlain's  attack,  they  became  the  steadfast  friends  of  the 
English  and  Dutch,  and  remained  such  as  long  as  the  English  su- 
premacy in  America  lasted.  Several  years  after  this  incident 
Champlain  made  an  expedition  against  the  Indians  in  western 
New  York,  which  ended  his  career  of  exploring  and  fighting. 
The  remaining  years  of  his  life  were  devoted  mainly  to  promoting 
the  progress  of  his  lifeless  settlement  at  Quebec,  which  as  late  as 
1628  had  a  population  of  only  one  hundred  persons.39     During  the 

88 John  Fiske,  "Discovery  of  America,"  vol.  ii.  p.  530. 

39  For  good  accounts  of  Qiamplain's  explorations  see  Parkman's  "  Pioneers 
of  France  in  the  New  World,  ch.  ix.-xvii. ;  Winsor,  "  Cartier  to  Frontenac,"  chs. 
v.-viii.,  and  Kingford's  "  History  of  Canada,"  vol.  i.  chs.  ii.-vii. 


EXPLORATIONS  51 

1628 

latter  half  of  the  same  century  La  Salle  and  Hennepin  traversed 
the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  region  of  the  Great  Lakes,  and 
Marquette  and  other  missionary  explorers  were  sent  out  from 
France  by  the  Society  of  Jesus. 

As  the  search  for  gold  and  silver  was  the  dominating  motive 
back  of  Spanish  explorations  in  America,  so  the  fish  and  peltry 
industries  constituted  the  chief  stimulus  to  French  adventure. 
Added  to  the  economic  stimulus  also  was  the  desire  to  convert  the 
heathen  to  the  Catholic  faith.  Along  with  every  fur  trader  went 
a  black-robed  priest,  and  while  the  one  bartered  with  the  dusky 
savage  for  his  skins,  the  other  talked  to  him  of  salvation  and 
grace.  Manifesting  a  genuine  sympathy  for  the  Indian  customs 
and  fraternizing  with  them  on  terms  of  social  equality,  the  French 
pioneers  gained  an  ascendancy  over  the  savages  (except,  of  course, 
the  Iroquois,  who  were  alienated  by  the  conduct  of  Champlain) 
which  neither  the  Englishman  nor  the  Spaniard  was  able  to  rival. 

As  in  New  Spain,  so  in  New  France  trade  and  commerce 
were  greatly  hampered  by  royal  grants  of  exclusive  privileges,  but 
during  the  time  of  Richelieu  notable  reforms  in  this  regard  were 
introduced.  The  French,  unlike  the  Spaniards  who  came  before 
them,  as  well  as  the  English  who  followed,  were  not  successful 
colonizers.  Their  settlements  always  languished  and  signs  of  ma- 
terial progress  were  seldom  seen.  Half  a  century  after  the  found- 
ing of  Quebec  there  were  not  above  three  thousand  white  settlers 
in  all  New  France  and  Acadia  put  together.40  The  successful 
colonization  of  America  was  left  for  another  race,  who  sent  over 
families  without  priests  and  missionaries,  whose  dominating  motive 
was  not  the  quest  for  gold  and  silver,  and  about  whose  history 
there  lingers  none  of  the  romance  of  the  courier  de  bois  or  the  con- 
questador. 

V 

EARLY    ENGLISH    ATTEMPTS    AT    COLONIZATION. 

After  the  voyages  of  the  Cabots,  under  Henry  VII.,  English 
fishermen  continued  to  frequent  the  Grand  Banks  of  Newfound- 
land, and  slave  merchants  traded  with  the  Spanish  colonies  in  the 
south,   but   it   was  not   until  Elizabeth  ascended   the  throne   and 

40  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  109. 


52  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1557-1584 

England  had  broken  forever  with  Catholicism  that  she  began 
to  contest  in  earnest  the  claims  of  Spain  to  the  land  and  treasures 
of  the  New  World.  The  Elizabethans  were  as  famous  upon 
the  sea  as  upon  the  stage;  the  chief  actors  there  were  Hawkins, 
Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert  and  his  half  brother,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh, 
Gosnold,  Newport,  Frobisher,  and  Francis  Drake,  and  to  these 
hardy  seamen  England  owes  her  colonial  empire,  and  the  United 
States  its  existence. 

Drake  in  particular  had  a  special  grudge  against  the  Spaniards, 
and  he  wreaked  his  vengeance  upon  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  go 
down  in  the  Spanish  annals  as  "The  Dragon."  In  1557  he  set 
out  with  four  vessels  on  a  buccaneering  tour  without  a  commis- 
sion from  the  queen,  but  three  of  the  ships  were  lost  by  mutiny, 
desertion  and  cowardice.  Drake,  however,  kept  on  in  the  Pelican 
and  entered  the  Pacific  in  October,  1578.  He  then  proceeded  to 
harry  the  unprotected  settlements  on  the  western  coast  of  America 
and  to  relieve  homeward  bound  Spanish  galleons  of  their  burdens 
of  silver  and  gold  wherever  he  could  find  them.  He  sailed  north- 
ward as  far  as  California  and  then  turned  west,  returning  to  Eng- 
land by  way  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  The  amount  of  spoil 
which  Drake  gathered  in  during  the  course  of  his  piratical  cruise 
was  enormous,  and  stirred  to  the  highest  pitch  the  wrath  of  the 
Spaniards.  The  queen  graciously  overlooked  his  conduct,  how- 
ever, rewarded  him  and  his  men  handsomely  with  a  share  of  the 
spoil  and  knighted  the  daring  admiral  in  person  on  board  the 
Pelican.41  Frobisher  and  Gilbert  each  made  three  voyages,  the 
former  to  the  Arctic  regions,  the  latter  to  Labrador  and  the  Gulf 
of  the  St.  Lawrence.  But  each  accomplished  little  beyond  interest- 
ing others  in  that  part  Of  the  country  and  inducing  them  to  at- 
tempt colonization  there. 

The  first  serious  effort  was  made  farther  south.  Gilbert 
had  been  lost  at  sea  on  the  return  trip  of  his  third  voyage,  and 
the  patent  which  had  been  issued  to  him  was  transferred  to 
Raleigh.  It  authorized  him  and  his  heirs  and  assigns  "  to  have 
and  to  hold,  to  occupy  and  enjoy"  all  the  lands  not  possessed  by 
any  Christian  prince,  the  lands  referred  to  doubtless  being  those 
of  northeastern  America.  Raleigh  was  one  of  Elizabeth's 
favorites,  was  the  friend  of  statesmen,  men  of  letters,  courtiers, 

41  "  Hale,  Hawkins  and  Drake  "  in  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History," 
vol.   vii.  ch.  ii. 


EXPLORATIONS  53 

1584-1588 

soldiers  and  mariners,  and  himself  a  leader  in  all  those  fields  of 
activity.  In  1584  he  sent  out  two  vessels  under  command  of 
Philip  Amadas  and  Arthur  Barlow,  who  landed  at  Roanoke  Island 
in  Albermarle  Sound  and  carried  back  a  glowing  description  of 
the  country,  which,  he  asserted,  was  "  the  most  plentiful,  sweet, 
fruitful  and  wholesome  of  all  the  world."  As  a  reward  really  for 
what  Amadas  and  Barlow  had  only  described,  Raleigh  was 
knighted  and  his  claim  was  confirmed.  He  named  the  country 
Virginia,  in  honor  of  the  Virgin  Queen,  and  by  her  help  sent  seven 
vessels  with  one  hundred  and  eight  colonists  the  next  year.  A 
piratical  detour  was  made  around  by  the  Canaries  in  order,  it  was 
said,  to  force  the  Spanish  to  help  pay  the  expenses. 

The  colonists,  one  hundred  in  number,  were  landed  on  Roanoke 
Island  under  the  leadership  of  Ralph  Lane  as  governor,  but  they 
too  "  spun  out  their  days  in  cursed  thirst  for  gold,"  and  starvation 
soon  stared  them  in  the  face.  At  this  juncture  Drake  happened 
to  pass  that  way  while  returning  from  a  cruise  in  the  West  Indies, 
and  carried  them  home  just  a  few  weeks  before  another  expedition 
under  Grenville  arrived  with  supplies  and  recruits,  of  whom  fifteen 
were  left  behind  to  hold  the  deserted  post,  while  Grenville  pro- 
ceeded to  the  West  Indies  to  collect  the  expenses  of  his  voyage 
from  the  Spaniards.  Raleigh,  whose  fortune  had  been  depleted 
by  these  repeated  efforts,  now  secured  help  from  certain  merchants 
and  men  of  influence  and  fitted  out  another  expedition  of  three 
vessels  destined  this  time  for  Chesapeake  Bay.  In  July,  1587, 
they  touched  at  Roanoke  for  the  purpose  of  taking  on  board  Gren- 
ville's  men,  but  found  not  one  of  them.  The  governor,  John 
White,  set  ashore  the  colonists,  among  them  his  wife,  his  daugh- 
ter and  grand-daughter,  Virginia  Dare,  the  first  English  child 
born  in  America,  and  returned  to  England  to  hurry  forward 
needed  supplies.  When  he  reached  Roanoke  again,  three  years 
later,  not  a  trace  of  the  colonists  was  to  be  found,  although  the 
houses  which  they  had  occupied  were  still  standing.  From  then 
until  now  the  fate  of  White's  "  lost  colony  "  has  been  a  fruitful 
theme  of  speculation  among  historians.  Most  of  them  probably 
perished;  some  of  them  may  have  been  adopted  by  the  Indians, 
for  at  a  much  later  time  people  with  light  hair  and  eyes  were  found 
among  the  Indians.  Some  such  people  may  be  found  in  North 
Carolina  to-day,  and  some  have  been  led  to  believe  that  they  were 


54  THE     UNITED     STATES 

15*8-1604 

the  descendants  of  the  lost  colonists,  but  it  seems  very  improbable.42 
With  undaunted  courage  Raleigh  tried  still  another  expedition  in 
1602,  but  again  failed.  James  I.  imprisoned  him  for  twelve  years, 
and  later,  after  Raleigh's  voyage  to  Guiana,  basely  executed  him  on 
an  old  and  false  charge  of  treason. 

The  cause  of  White's  failure  to  return  sooner  was  the  war 
with  Spain.  The  English  buccaneers  were  becoming  more  and 
more  daring,  robbing  Spain  of  her  treasure  ships  and  even  harry- 
ing the  Spanish  Main.  Her  very  existence  seemed  to  depend  upon 
free  communication  with  her  colonies,  which  was  now  threatened, 
and  for  this  and  other  reasons  she  determined  upon  one  supreme 
effort  to  crush  her  maritime  rival.  For  this  purpose  Philip  II. 
fitted  out  his  "  Invincible  Armada,"  consisting  of  one  hundred  and 
thirty  ships,  carrying  thirty  thousand  soldiers  and  three  thousand 
heavy  guns.  In  May,  1588,  this  gigantic  fleet  appeared  off  the 
coast  of  England.  The  English  vessels  were  smaller  in  size  and 
fewer  in  number  than  the  Spanish,  but  much  faster;  and  manned 
by  such  masterly  seamen  as  Hawkins,  Frobisher  and  Drake,  they 
proved  irresistible.  What  the  English  left  the  winds  destroyed, 
and  the  two  together  dealt"  Spain  a  blow  from  which  she  never  re- 
covered.43 The  destruction  of  her  colonial  empire,  begun  at  this 
time  by  England,  was  completed  just  three  hundred  and  ten  years 
later,  almost  to  a  day,  by  the  United  States. 

Bartholomew  Gosnold  deserves  mention  among  the  English 
navigators  as  being  one  of  the  first  to  sail  directly  for  America 
from  England,  instead  of  passing  down  by  the  West  Indies,  thereby 
shortening  the  route  by  nearly  a  thousand  miles.  Cape  Cod  was 
named  by  him  in  1602  while  exploring  the  coast  of  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire.  In  the  following  year  Martin  Pring  was 
sent  out  with  two  vessels  by  certain  British  merchants  to  explore 
the  New  England  coast,  and  in  1604  he  was  followed  by  George 
Weymouth,  who  explored  some  of  the  same  coast.  The  report  of 
the  abundance  of  good  harbors  in  this  region  fixed  still  more 
firmly  the  attention  of  the  English  upon  it  as  better  suited  for 
colonization  than  the  country  farther  south ;  but  the  honor  of  re- 
ceiving the  first  English  colony  was  reserved  for  Virginia. 

Such,    in    brief,    was    the    experience    of    the    Europeans    in 

42  Read  Brown's  "  Genesis  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  20  et  scq.,  and  S. 
B.  Weeks  in  "  American  Historical  Papers,"  vol.  v.  p.  4. 

43  Read  Corbett's  "  Drake  and  the  Tudor  Navy." 


'A  cq 

ti  „  • 

in  £; 

S  o 


v,  2 


EXPLORATIONS  55 

1604-1606 

America  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Of  the  nations  most  active  and 
destined  to  play  leading  roles,  Spain  seemed  to  have  the  firmest 
hold.  But  she  had  fallen  upon  the  indolent  south,  where  nature 
saps  the  very  energies  her  luxuries  promise  to  sustain.  France 
turned  to  the  frozen  north,  but  wasted  by  dissensions  at  home 
and  constant  wars  abroad,  she  had  a  slender  hold  on  the  extensive 
region  to  the  north  and  south  of  the  St.  Lawrence  to  which  she 
laid  claim.  The  English,  whether  from  choice  or  necessity,  had 
taken  the  safer  middle  ground  and  claimed  all  from  Newfound- 
land to  Florida,  though  nobody  knew  where  the  dividing  lines 
were.  But  at  the  dawn  of  the  seventeenth  century  not  a  single 
permanent  settlement  had  yet  been  effected  by  the  power  destined 
to  dominate  the  New  World. 


Chapter  III 


THE   PLANTING   OF   THE   SOUTHERN   COLONIES 

1606-1776 


VIRGINIA 

AFTER  the  failure  of  Raleigh  no  single  individual  was 
found  to  risk  his  fame  and  fortune  in  efforts  at  coloniza- 
tion, but  the  work  was  soon  taken  up  by  corporate  com- 
panies. The  success  attending  the  Muscovy  and  East  India 
Companies,  which  had  been  founded  to  trade  with  Russia  and 
India  respectively,  led  a  few  venturesome  merchants  and  traders 
to  inquire  if  similar  results  could  not  be  obtained  by  corporate 
action  in  America.  The  conditions  were  indeed  vastly  dif- 
ferent, but  the  venture  was  made  and  a  charter  secured  from 
King  James  I.  in  1606  for  a  company  with  two  subdivisions,  the 
London  Company  and  the  Plymouth  Company,  so  called  from 
the  names  of  the  towns  which  became  the  headquarters  of  the 
two  companies  respectively.  The  first  was  granted  permission  to 
plant  a  colony  anywhere  on  the  coast  of  Virginia  (the  name  ap- 
plied to  all  the  English  claims  in  America  at  this  time)  between 
the  thirty- fourth  and  thirty-eighth  degrees  of  north  latitude;  the 
second  was  given  the  same  privilege  between  the  forty-first  and 
forty-fifth,  neither  company  to  plant  a  colony  within  one  hundred 
miles  of  a  settlement  already  made  by  the  other.  The  announce- 
ment of  a  new  colonial  policy  such  as  had  not  yet  been  intro- 
duced in  America  was  contained  in  the  clause  which  declared  that 
the  colonists  and  their  posterity  should  enjoy  all  "  liberties,  fran- 
chises and  immunities  "  as  though  they  were  abiding  in  the  realm 
—  that  is,  they  were  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  common  law 
equally  with  the  inhabitants  of  England.  This  declaration  really 
deserves  to  be  called  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  colonization.1 

The  government  of  the  colony  was  to  be  nominally  in  the 

1  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  162. 
56 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  57 

1606-1607 

hands  of  two  councils,  one  resident  in  England,  the  other  in  the 
colony;  but  as  one  was  appointed  directly,  and  the  other  indirectly, 
by  the  king,  all  power  was  virtually  in  his  hands.  The  council  in 
America  was  to  administer  affairs  according  to  instructions  issued 
by  the  king,  but  any  laws  or  ordinances  which  it  might  make  were 
subject  to  repeal  by  the  crown  or  by  the  home  council.  The  form 
of  government  thus  provided  was  absurdly  cumbrous  and  soon 
had  to  be  abandoned.  The  first  instructions  ordered  that  the  land 
tenure  should  be  the  same  as  in  England :  that  trial  by  jury  should 
be  preserved,  and  the  supremacy  of  the  king  and  of  the  Church  of 
England  maintained.2 

The  colony  itself  was  to  be  started  on  a  system  of  communism. 
In  the  words  of  Doyle,  it  was  to  be  a  "  vast  joint-stock  farm,  or 
collection  of  farms,  worked  by  servants  who  were  to  receive,  in  re- 
turn for  their  labor,  all  their  necessaries  and  a  share  in  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  undertaking."  All  trade  was  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
treasurer  or  cape  merchant,  and  was  to  be  public.  The  patentees 
were  given  the  right  to  exact  a  duty  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent, 
from  all  English  subjects,  and  five  per  cent,  from  all  foreigners 
trading  with  the  colony.  For  twenty  years  the  proceeds  were  to 
accrue  to  the  company,  after  that  to  the  crown.3  Among  the  first 
councilors  appointed  by  the  king  were  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges,  Sir 
Edwin  Sandys,  Sir  Thomas  Smythe  and  Sir  Francis  Popham,  all 
able  and  well-known  men  of  their  time.  These  preliminaries  be- 
ing completed,  preparations  were  made  to  send  out  the  first  colony 
to  take  possession  of  the  company's  lands. 

On  December  19,  1606,  three  puny  vessels,  with  an  aggre- 
gate tonnage  of  not  over  one  hundred  and  sixty  tons,  sailed  from 
England  on  what  was  perhaps,  for  Englishmen  at  least,  the  most 
important  voyage  in  its  results  since  Columbus  had  sailed  out  of 
Palos  with  his  three  caravels  more  than  a  hundred  years  previous. 
The  three  ships  were  called  the  Susan  Constant,  the  Godspeed  and 
the  Discovery,  all  belonging  to  the  Muscovy  Company,  and  they 
carried  one  hundred  and  four  settlers  to  the  coast  of  Virginia  under 
the  command  of  Christopher  Newport,  a  well-known  seaman  of 
the  time.  The  voyage  was  long  and  stormy  and  spring  was  well 
advanced  when  they  entered  Chesapeake  Bay  (May,  1607).  The 
two  capes  at  the  entrance  of  this  bay  were  named  Charles  and 

-  Fiske,  "  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  i.  p.  64. 
3  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America."  vol.  i.  p.   128. 


58  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1607 

Henry,  in  honor  of  the  king's  sons,4  and  one  of  the  largest  rivers 
flowing  into  the  bay  they  called  James,  in  honor  of  their  king. 
Sailing  up  this  for  fifty  miles  they  selected  a  place  for  settlement 
and  called  it  Jamestown. 

An  inventory  of  the  settlers  shows  that  they  were  ill-fitted  for 
the  task  which  they  had  undertaken.  Fifty-five,  more  than  half 
the  entire  number,  were  ranked  as  "  gentlemen,"  that  is,  men  dis- 
daining labor,  and  out  for  adventure :  a  London  tailor,  a  barber 
and  a  perfumer  were  sent  along  to  look  after  the  wants  of  these 
gentlemen.  Twelve  laborers  and  a  few  artisans  were  expected  to 
furnish  the  necessary  brawn  and  sinew.  There  was  not  a  woman 
in  the  company.  The  place  selected  for  the  town,  a  malarial 
peninsula,  chosen  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  instructions  of  the 
Virginia  council,  was  no  better  suited  to  colony-building  than  the 
men  who  settled  there. 

However,  the  company  contained  a  few  men  of  worth,  among 
them  John  Smith,  whose  life,  says  Fiske,  reads  like  a  chapter  from 
"  The  Cloister  and  the  Hearth,"  and  but  for  whose  presence  and 
foresight  the  colony  would  have  met  the  fate  of  Raleigh's  earlier 
experiment.  The  thirst  for  gold  was  still  strong,  and  the  settlers 
were  instructed  to  find  this  and  also  a  way  to  India.  So  that 
while  others  were  engaged  in  erecting  huts  or  stretching  tents, 
Captains  Newport  and  Smith  went  up  the  river  on  this  quest,  but 
after  a  conference  with  the  Indian  chief,  Powhatan,  the  supreme 
ruler  in  these  parts,  turned  back  at  the  falls  where  Richmond  now 
stands  and  returned  to  Jamestown.5 

Shortly  thereafter  Newport  sailed  for  England  with  a  batch 
of  cheerful  reports  and  a  quantity  of  ore  which  proved  to  have  been 
"  taken  from  the  wrong  heap."  It  was  hardly  reasonable  to  ex- 
pect that  such  a  company  would  be  harmonious.  Dissensions  had 
broken  out  on  shipboard,  where  Smith  was  kept  in  irons  for  a 
month  mainly  on  account  of  jealousy,  and  was  actually  excluded 
from  the  council,  of  which  he  had  been  appointed  a  member,  for 
another  month  after  landing.  After  the  departure  of  Newport  in 
July  the  dissensions  increased  and  the  troubles  of  the  colonists 
grew  apace.     To  internal  trouble  was  added  the  haunting  fear  of 

4  Bancroft,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  124;  Brown,  "Genesis 
of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.   151   et  seq. 

6  Eggleston,  "Beginners  of  a  Nation,"  pp.  32-38;  Fiske,  "Old  Virginia  and 
Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  i.  pp.  82-85. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  59 

1607-1609 

Indian  attacks,  for,  in  spite  of  special  instructions  to  that  end,  some 
of  the  red  men  had  not  been  well  treated  by  the  newcomers.  Heat, 
famine,  and  fever  made  deadly  work,  and  by  the  end  of  Septem- 
ber about  half  the  colonists  had  succumbed. 

Fortunately  for  the  colonists  Smith  was  among  the  survivors. 
Several  of  his  enemies  had  perished  and  this  made  it  all  the  easier 
for  him  to  gain  the  ascendency.  The  story  of  his  career  for  the 
next  two  years  forms  one  of  the  most  romantic  pages  in  American 
history.  He  has  left  us  an  account  of  a  still  more  remarkable 
career  preceding  this  in  Europe  and  Asia  Minor,  so  remarkable, 
indeed,  that  its  credibility  has  been  seriously  doubted  by  careful 
critics.  There  is  no  question  that  he  was  a  vain  fellow,  a  sort  of 
"  braggart  captain  " ;  but  neither  is  there  any  doubt  that  he  was  a 
remarkable  man,  a  true  Elizabethan  Englishman,  and  that  there 
is  a  considerable  element  of  truth  in  his  narrative  of  his  own  ex- 
ploits. 

The  first  incident  of  consequence  was  his  capture  by  the 
Indians  while  he  was  searching  for  the  Pacific.  The  story  of  his 
release  by  the  chief  Powhatan  at  the  intercession  of  Pocahontas  is 
familiar  to  every  American  schoolboy.  The  Pocahontas  part  is 
now  generally  discredited,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  story 
of  Smith's  capture.  Certain  it  is  that  he  rendered  invaluable  aid 
to  the  colonists  by  keeping  the  peace  with  the  Indians  and  by 
securing  from  them  corn  sufficient  to  preserve  the  life  of  the  thirty- 
eight  settlers  still  alive  when  Newport  returned  in  January,  1608. 
He  ruled  like  a  military  despot,  but  nothing  else  would  have  saved 
the  colony.  He  set  the  "  gentlemen  "  to  work,  declaring  that  "  he 
who  will  not  work  shall  not  eat."  Before  leaving  Virginia  he  had 
thoroughly  explored  the  Chesapeake  Bay  and  its  environs  and 
made  an  excellent  map  of  it.  His  enemies  at  last  gained  the 
ascendency,  and  he  was  practically  driven  out  of  the  colony  in  the 
fall  of  1609,  never  to  return.  Nevertheless  he  afterwards  made 
several  visits  to  America,  explored  the  New  England  coast  and 
published  accounts  of  his  explorations. 

The  year  1609  was  notable  to  Virginia  in  that  it  brought  a 
new  and  more  liberal  charter  for  the  colonists.  The  council  in 
England  was  originally  distinct  from  the  company,  but  it  now 
became  a  part  of  it.  A  governor  took  the  place  of  the  council 
resident  in  the  colony  and  the  whole  government  of  the  corporation 
and  its  colony  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  stockholders.     The 


60  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1609-1611 

boundaries  were  vaguely  defined  as  extending  two  hundred  miles 
each  way  from  Old  Point  Comfort,  and  "  up  into  the  land  through- 
out from  sea  to  sea,  west  and  northwest."  Here  was  a  basis  for 
the  future  Virginia  claim  to  the  Northwest  Territory. 

Lord  de  la  Warr,  or  Delaware,  became  the  governor  under 
the  new  charter  and  embarked  with  five  hundred  men  and  women, 
but  was  delayed  many  months  by  terrible  storms.  Meantime  there 
came,  in  1609-1610,  the  awful  "starving  time"  for  Virginia. 
Men  were  so  crazed  by  hunger  that  some  were  driven  to  dig  up 
and  eat  the  putrid  remains  of  their  own  dead  after  they  had  con- 
sumed all  their  brood  hogs,  their  horses  and  dogs,  and  every  rat, 
mouse  or  adder  that  could  be  found.  Some  died  while  wandering 
about  in  the  woods  in  search  of  food;  others  in  sheer  desperation 
threw  themselves  upon  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Indians  and  were 
slain.  Of  the  five  hundred  settlers  in  the  colony  when  Smith  left 
only  sixty  half-starved  wretches  were  alive  in  the  spring  of  1610, 
and  these  would  probably  have  succumbed  within  a  few  days  had 
not  help  soon  arrived.  In  their  despair  they  determined  to  aban- 
don the  colony,  and  crowding  themselves  with  their  few  remaining 
provisions  into  four  pinnaces,  two  of  them  improvised  for  the  pur- 
pose, they  sailed  down  the  river  for  England,  but  near  the  mouth 
met  Delaware  with  recruits  and  supplies  and  returned  to  James- 
town to  face  again  the  horrors  of  life  in  this  pestilential  Virginia 
swamp. 

Delaware  next  went  up  the  James  to  chase  the  ever-receding 
rainbow  which  marked  the  site  of  the  gold-fields,  only  to  be  driven 
back  by  men  of  copper  hue.6  Under  his  management  conditions 
improved  a  little,  however,  but  he  left  in  less  than  a  year  and  was 
succeeded  by  Sir  Thomas  Dale  (1611),  a  soldier  who  had  served 
against  the  Spanish  in  the  Netherlands.  Dale  came  out  clothed 
with  authority  to  rule  by  martial  law,  and  he  appears  to  have 
stretched  his  authority  to  the  uttermost.  He  inflicted  the  death 
penalty  for  blasphemy,  disrespect  to  the  public  authorities  and 
many  other  offenses  that  would  now  go  unnoticed.  Under  his  piti- 
less rule  the  colony  became  half  military  camp  and  half  penal 
colony.  His  little  finger  proved  to  be  heavier  than  the  loins  of 
his  predecessors.     Whether  the  rod  of  iron  was  necessary  to  the 

6  For  an  interesting  account  of  the  illusions  of  the  colonists  in  this  respect, 
see  Eggleston.  "  Beginners  of  a  Nation,"  ch.  iii. ;  see  also  Fiske,  '*  Old  Virginia 
and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  i.  pp.  122-123. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  61 

1611-1619 

life  of  the  colony  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  at  the  end  of  five  years 
Dale  left  the  settlement  in  a  better  condition  than  he  found  it,7 
even  though  the  settlers  always  alluded  to  the  period  as  "  five  years 
of  slavery."  He  also  established  other  settlements  along  the 
James. 

One  of  his  best  services  to  the  colony  was  the  termination  of 
the  communal  system,  under  which  the  fruits  of  each  man's  labor 
went  to  the  common  stock  and  the  settlers  were  fed  and  clothed 
from  a  common  store-house.  It  had  been  limited  to  five  years 
as  an  experiment,  but  Dale  began  its  extinction  before  the  expira- 
tion of  that  time  by  assigning  to  each  settler  three  acres,  the  pro- 
ceeds of  which  were  to  be  his  own,  though  he  was  still  to  labor 
for  the  community.  Even  this  three  acres  of  private  right  put  so 
much  more  life  in  the  colony  that  private  ownership  was  destined 
to  become  the  rule.  Another  event  of  importance  which  occurred 
during  Dale's  administration  was  the  introduction  of  the  cultiva- 
tion of  tobacco.  At  first  the  Virginia  product  was  unsuited  to  the 
English  market  on  account  of  its  bitter  taste,  but  through  the  aid 
of  John  Rolfe  the  settlers  were  taught  how  to  cure  it  for  export. 
The  use  of  this  weed  had  spread  so  rapidly  after  its  discovery,  and 
its  cultivation  in  Virginia  was  so  easy,  that  the  economic  success  of 
the  colony  was  now  assured.8  As  early  as  1620  40,000  pounds 
were  annually  being  shipped  to  England. 

The  year  16 19  is  remarkable  in  the  history,  not  only  of  Vir- 
ginia, but  also  of  America,  for  the  introduction  of  two  systems 
diametrically  opposed  —  slavery  and  democracy.  Both  made  a 
profound  impression  on  the  future  life  of  a  great  nation,  and  more 
than  two  hundred  years  later  the  former  perished  at  the  hands 
of  the  latter.  There  were  indeed  servants  in  the  colony  before 
this,  but  this  year  marked  the  coming  of  negro  slaves  in  a  Dutch 
ship,  which  arrived  at  Jamestown,  bringing  several  for  the  use 
of  the  settlers.  The  number  of  negroes  increased  slowly,  for  the 
demand  was  inconsiderable,  and  as  late  as  1661  there  were  only 
two  thousand  in  the  colony,  while  the  indented  white  servants  num- 
bered eight  thousand.9 

The  charter  of  1609  had  been  followed  by  one  still  more  lib- 
eral in  1612.     On  November  13,  1618,  the  Virginia  Company  is- 

7  Read  Bruce,  "  Economic  History  of  Virginia,"  vol.  i.  pp.  215  et  seq. 

8  Read  Bruce,  "  Economic  History  of  Virginia,"  vol.  i.  ch.  vi. 

9  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America,"  vol.  i.  p.  385. 


62  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1619 

sued  to  the  colonists  a  "  Great  Charter  or  Commissions  of  Privi- 
leges, Orders  and  Laws,"  which  limited  the  power  of  the  governor 
and  estaBlished  a  legislature  representing  the  "  cities,"  "  planta- 
tions," and  "  hundreds."  The  first  legislature,  or  "  House  of 
Burgesses,"  as  it  was  called  in  Virginia,  that  ever  assembled  in 
America  met  at  Jamestown  in  July,  1619.  It  consisted  of  the  gov- 
ernor, the  councilors  and  twenty-two  burgesses  popularly  elected 
from  eleven  plantations  or  hundreds.  Such  was  the  beginning  of 
the  present  American  system  of  an  executive  and  a  bicameral  legis- 
lature, though  in  Virginia  the  council  and  the  burgesses,  together 
with  the  governor,  continued  to  sit  as  one  body  for  a  number  of 
years.  A  little  more  than  a  year  later  the  principle  of  democracy 
gained  more  recruits  in  the  New  England  Pilgrims.  In  1621  the 
Virginia  colony  was  given  a  sort  of  written  pledge  guaranteeing 
these  privileges.  It  even  provided  that  no  order  of  the  London 
Company  should  bind  the  settlers  unless  ratified  by  their  general 
assembly  of  the  Company.  Thus  was  Virginia  made  the  nursery 
of  freemen  in  the  very  beginning  of  colonization.10 

Another  event  of  importance  in  the  year  1619  was  the  com- 
ing to  Virginia  of  ninety  women,  "  young,  handsome  and  well 
recommended,"  to  be  wooed  and  won  by  the  bachelor  planters ;  for, 
according  to  the  quaint  phrase  of  the  time,  "  a  plantation  can  never 
flourish  till  families  be  planted  and  the  respects  of  wives  and  chil- 
dren fix  the  people  in  the  soyle."  n  The  first  shipload  of 
maidens  did  not  prove  a  drug  on  the  market;  the  cost  of  their 
transportation  was  quickly  defrayed  by  the  anxious  bachelors  of 
Jamestown,  and  after  the  necessary  consent  was  gained,  marriages 
promptly  followed.  The  supply  was  not  equal  to  the  demand, 
and  soon  other  shiploads  arrived  in  the  colony,  and  were  easily 
disposed  of  to  the  eager  suitors  who  gathered  about  the  wharf  on 
such  occasions.  With  wives,  mothers  and  children  in  the  colony 
the  rude  huts  of  the  settlers  became  happy  homes,  and  soon  no  one 
any  longer  dreamed  of  returning  to  England.  Three  years  later 
the  first  great  Indian  massacre  occurred,  which  was  a  great  blow 
to  the  progress  of  the  colony.  Powhatan,  the  Indian  potentate 
of  this  region,  who  had  been  friendly  to  the  English,  had  recently 
died.     His    brother   and    successor,    Opechancanough,    had    never 

10  Bancroft,   "History  of  the  United    States,"   vol.    i.   p.    118;    Fiske,   "Old 
Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  i.  pp.  243-245. 

11  Eggleston,    "  Beginners   of   a   Nation,"   p.   57. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  63 

1619-1644 

shared  Powhatan's  friendship  for  the  settlers,  and  now  led  an  at- 
tack in  which  three  hundred  and  forty-seven  of  them  perished; 
but  the  whites  soon  returned  the  blow  with  even  more  deadly  ef- 
fect. There  were  now  only  about  twelve  hundred  persons  in  the 
colony  out  of  more  than  six  thousand  that  had  landed  in  Virginia 
since  1607.  Four-fifths  of  the  early  comers  had  perished;  but  if 
we  may  believe  the  writers  of  the  time  the  high  mortality  was 
largely  good  riddance  of  bad  rubbish. 

The  massacre  was  one  of  the  reasons  given  by  the  crown  for 
annulling  the  charter  of  the  Virginia  Company  in  1624,  and  the 
reduction  of  the  colony  to  the  position  of  a  royal  province.  A 
stronger  reason,  probably,  was  that  the  Puritan  element,  which  was 
so  troublesome  in  Parliament,  had  gained  the  ascendency  in  the 
Company.  When  threatened  with  the  loss  of  their  liberties  and 
the  reestablishment  of  the  old  tyranny  the  previous  year,  the  col- 
onists petitioned  the  king,  saying :  "  Rather  than  be  reduced  to 
live  under  such  a  government,  we  desire  his  majesty  that  com- 
missioners may  be  sent  over  to  hang  us."  However,  the  colonists 
were  hardly  any  the  worse  off  for  the  change.  If  James  had  any 
designs  on  Virgina  he  was  unable  to  carry  them  out,  for  he  died 
shortly  afterward.  Charles  soon  had  enough  at  home  to  keep  him 
busy,  and  government  in  Virginia  went  on  very  much  as  it  had 
done  before.  One  result  of  the  change  from  a  corporate  to  a  royal 
province  was  that  the  public  officers  were  now  dependent  on  the 
crown,  and  the  colonists  were  thus  deprived  of  any  control  over 
their  conduct  and  also  over  the  public  expenditures.  This  soon 
became  a  grievance,  and  remained  a  cause  of  complaint  until  the 
Revolution. 

Among  the  Virginia  executives  Sir  George  Yeardiey,  who  was 
governor  when  the  first  assembly  met,  deserves  at  least  to  be  men- 
tioned by  name.  He  was  a  judicious  executive  and  the  colony 
prospered  under  his  rule.  He  was  followed  by  a  number  of  gov- 
ernors of  varying  temper  and  ability  until  Sir  William  Berkeley, 
a  rough  old  cavalier,  was  sent  over  in  1642.  With  the  exception 
of  a  few  years  during  the  Commonwealth  he  held  office  until  1677, 
during  all  of  which  time  he  ruled  the  colony  with  a  strong  and 
masterful  hand.  Soon  after  his  arrival  occurred  a  second  great 
Indian  uprising  (1644),  which  he  put  down  with  vigor,  among 
the  Indians  slain  being  the  aged  chief,  Opechancanough,  who  had 
led  the  first  attack  against  the  settlers  in  1622.     The  Puritans  were 


64  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1644-1673 

becoming  stronger  and  stronger  in  England,  and  in  1649  tney 
compassed  the  death  of  King  Charles  I.  His  son  was  invited  to 
Virgina  by  Berkeley,  who,  with  most  of  the  Virginians,  sympa- 
thized with  the  Cavaliers,  but  he  never  came.  Commissioners  from 
Parliament,  however,  arrived  in  1652  and  reorganized  the  colonial 
government  with  the  Puritan  element  in  charge.  But  the  change 
of  masters  from  king  to  Parliament  was  probably  to  the  advantage 
of  the  colonists,  since  they  were  allowed  greater  freedom  in  the 
management  of  their  own  affairs  and  an  era  of  prosperity  soon 
set  in. 

The  period  of  the  Commonwealth  in  England  was  also  a 
period  of  Commonwealth  in  Virginia.  In  addition  to  their  bur- 
gesses the  colonists  now  elected  their  governor  and  council.  An- 
other important  effect  of  the  Puritan  ascendency  in  England  was 
the  exodus  of  Cavaliers  by  the  thousand  to  Virginia.  In  1649 
the  population  of  the  colony  was  estimated  at  15.000  English  and 
300  negro  slaves.12  By  1670  the  population  had  risen  to  40.000. 
The  Cavaliers  who  came  over  at  this  time  were  of  a  better  class 
than  the  "  gentlemen  "  who  came  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  colony. 
Some  of  the  most  famous  names  in  the  history  of  Virginia  and  of 
the  United  States,  such  as  Washington,  Madison,  Monroe.  Marshall 
and  others,  then  first  became  known  in  America. 

The  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  in  1660  brought  only  ill  to 
the  colonists,  although  they  might  reasonably  have  expected  fair 
treatment  at  the  hands  of  Charles  II.  The  offices  were  given  to 
profligate  favorites  of  the  king ;  dissenters,  who  had  flocked  to  Vir- 
ginia as  a  place  of  refuge,  were  repressed  by  harsh  measures,  and 
the  Navigation  Act,  which  is  described  elsewhere,  was  enforced 
with  rigor.  These  and  other  acts  of  repression  finally  led  to  a 
rebellion  (1663),  but  this  was  soon  put  down  and  the  leaders  were 
hanged.  In  1673,  with  a  reckless  disregard  of  vested  rights, 
Charles  granted  the  whole  of  Virginia  to  two  of  his  favorites.  Lords 
Arlington  and  Culpepper.  But  the  colonists  resisted  and  the  pat- 
entees surrendered  their  rights,  except  the  quit-rents  and  escheats, 
taking  in  lieu  thereof  a  duty  of  three  half-pence  per  pound  on  to- 
bacco. 

With  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  came  also  the  restoration 
of   Berkeley.     Though   of   a    narrow   mind    and   hot   temper,   his 

12  Doyle,  "English  Colonics  in  America,"  vol.  i.  p.  207;  Fiske,  "Old  Virginia 
and  Her  Neighbors, "  vol.  ii.  ch.  xi. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  65 

1673-1677 

personal  qualities  had  been  such  as  to  make  him  popular  with  a 
large  party  in  Virginia  and  tolerable  to  all.  But  the  sufferings  of 
his  party  during  the  Commonwealth  seem  to  have  embittered  him, 
and  in  his  later  years  he  was  little  better  than  a  rapacious  tyrant. 
The  assembly  which  recalled  him  sought  to  impose  a  condition  that 
he  should  call  the  legislature  together  every  two  years.  Soon  after 
his  return  he  secured  the  election  of  an  assembly  of  decidedly  roy- 
alist tendencies,  and  refused  to  order  another  election  for  fif- 
teen years.  The  fires  of  discontent  smoldered  under  these  and 
other  grievances,  among  them  the  disfranchisement  of  all  except 
landholders  and  householders,  and  certain  oppressive  measures  of 
taxation,  but  they  finally  broke  out  over  the  Indian  question. 

The  Virginians  had  been  on  friendly  terms  with  the  Indians 
for  many  years,  and  the  assembly  had  passed  several  laws  to  pro- 
tect the  red  men,  but  these  relations  were  disturbed  in  1675.  Acts 
of  reprisal  and  retaliation  followed  one  another,  until  the  situation 
became  unbearable.  Still  the  governor  remained  inactive.  A 
young  lawyer  of  wealth  and  popularity,  by  the  name  of  Nathaniel 
Bacon,  then  raised  a  company  and  asked  the  governor  for  a  com- 
mission to  chastise  the  Indians,  but  this  Berkeley  refused,  because, 
as  some  thought,  this  would  disturb  the  fur  trade,  in  which  he 
had  a  pecuniary  interest.  Bacon  then  marched  out  in  defiance  of 
the  governor,  and  the  governor  promptly  marched  after  him. 
Finding  that  the  temper  of  the  colonists  was  against  him,  Berkeley 
returned  to  Jamestown,  dissolved  the  old  assembly,  and  ordered  a 
new  election  (1676).  The  new  assembly  passed  a  number  of  re- 
form measures,  voted  to  carry  on  the  war  with  the  Indians,  nomi- 
nated Bacon  to  command  the  expedition,  and  passed  an  act  of 
indemnity.  The  governor  was  now  brought  to  bay  by  Bacon  with 
an  armed  force;  but  a  reconciliation  was  patched  up,  the  commis- 
sion granted,  and  Bacon  marched  off  to  fight  the  Indians.  Berke- 
ley then  proclaimed  Bacon  a  rebel  and  a  traitor,  and  called  out  the 
militia,  but  they  were  in  no  mood  to  support  him,  whereupon 
Bacon  summoned  a  convention  to  meet  at  Williamsburg.  Most 
of  the  planter:,  in  that  neighborhood  answered  the  summons  and 
loyally  supported  Lacon,  except  in  his  project  for  independence  of 
the  crown.  The  leader  now  chastised  the  Indians,  returned  and 
disbanded  most  of  his  troops  before  learning  that  the  governor 
was  still  after  him.  Bacon  then  laid  siege  to  Jamestown,  cap- 
tured and  burned  it,  but  died  of  malarial  fever  soon  after.     With 


66  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1677-1722 

the  death  of  Bacon  the  backbone  of  the  insurrection  was  broken. 
Twenty-three  of  his  followers  were  executed  in  cold  blood  by  the 
vindictive  old  governor.  On  hearing  of  his  tyrannical  course 
Charles  exclaimed,  "  That  old  fool  has  hanged  more  men  in  that 
naked  country  than  I  have  done  for  the  murder  of  my  father." 
He  was  immediately  recalled,  and  died  not  long  afterwards  (1677). 

Soon  after  these  events,  Culpepper,  one  of  the  men  to  whom 
Charles  had  granted  the  whole  province,  came  out  as  governor 
( 1679).  He  was  a  tyrant  even  more  rapacious  than  Berkeley,  and 
brought  on  a  rebellion  among  the  tobacco  planters  because  of  the 
ruin  wrought  on  their  industry  by  his  attempt  to  regulate  prices 
and  establish  ports  of  shipment.  The  rebellion  was  suppressed  and 
a  number  of  the  leaders  were  hanged.  Some  of  Culpepper's  suc- 
cessors were  better  men,  but  none  of  them  could  be  described  as 
really  excellent  until  the  coming  of  Alexander  Spottswood,  who  was 
governor  from  1710  to  1722.  He  was  one  of  the  best  of  a  long 
line  of  colonial  governors  and  his  name  is  revered  in  Virginia  even 
to  this  day.  By  this  time  it  had  become  customary  for  the  nomi- 
nal governor  to  reside  in  England,  where  he  could  spend  his  salary 
in  a  way  more  to  his  liking  and  send  out  lieutenants  to  perform  his 
duties. 

The  limits  of  this  work  do  not  allow  an  extended  discussion 
of  the  policy  of  imperial  control,  but  a  word  must  be  added  in  re- 
gard to  the  commercial  policy  of  the  mother  country  in  its  deal- 
ings with  the  colonists.13  This  was  one  of  restriction,  but  was  not 
adopted  through  any  premeditated  tyranny  or  extortion;  it  was  a 
part  of  the  accepted  political  economy  of  the  day.  A  statute 
of  Richard  II.  had  restricted  exportation  to  "  ships  of  the  king's 
ligeance."  Under  Henry  VII.  and  Elizabeth  other  restrictions 
were  added,  and  these  were  imposed  upon  the  colonists.  The  cul- 
tivation of  tobacco  in  England  was  forbidden  for  the  benefit  of 
the  Virginia  Company,  but  a  limit  was  soon  put  upon  the  amount 
they  might  import.  The  colonists  then  sought  a  market  in  Hol- 
land, only  to  be  forbidden  to  sell  anywhere  except  in  England. 
In  1 62 1  the  limitation  on  the  amount  imported  was  removed.  The 
colonists  had  evaded  the  Navigation  Acts,  but  as  the  contest  be- 
tween the  English  and  the  Dutch  for  supremacy  in  the  carrying 
trade  became  sharper  more  stringent  measures  were  adopted. 

13  On  the  subject   of  Imperial   Control,   see  Greene,  "Provincial  America," 
ch.  iii. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  67 

1722-1730 

In  165 1,  during  the  Commonwealth,  a  Navigation  Act  was 
passed,  which  is  frequently  referred  to  as  the  beginning  of  the 
coercive  trade  measures  which  finally  led  to  the  Revolution,  but 
very  similar  acts,  only  less  stringent,  had  been  passed  in  1645- 
1646.  By  the  Act  of  1651  the  carrying  trade  to  and  from  the 
colonies  was  restricted  to  English  ships.  It  had  been  provided  at 
the  start  that  the  colonists  were  to  remain  Englishmen.  Like- 
wise their  vessels  were  "  English  built,"  within  the  meaning  of 
this  act,  but  they  were  required  to  land  their  goods  in  English 
ports.  The  law  was  reenacted  by  the  Cavaliers  after  the  Restora- 
tion (1660),  and  three  years  later  it  was  so  amended  as  practi- 
cally to  force  the  colonists  to  buy  all  their  wares  in  England.  In 
1673  a  blow  was  dealt  at  inter-colonial  trade  by  levying  heavy  du- 
ties on  all  articles  which  could  be  supplied  in  England.  And  so 
the  work  went  on  until  stopped  forever  by  the  Revolution.  Jus- 
tice to  the  mother  country  compels  admission  that  the  acts  were 
not  as  a  rule  rigidly  enforced  against  the  colonists.  Indeed,  they 
were  not  enforced  at  all  during  the  period  of  the  Commonwealth.14 

Taken  all  in  all,  Virginia  cannot  be  said  to  have  had  smooth 
sailing  during  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century.  In  con- 
sequence immigration  fell  off,  but  the  population  still  numbered 
nearly  one  hundred  thousand  at  the  close  of  the  century,  and  nearly 
all  were  English.  In  1700  the  colony  received  an  infusion  of 
Huguenot  blood,  and  in  1730  the  Scotch-Irish  opened  up  the  Shen- 
andoah Valley.  These  peoples  brought  with  them  new  ideas  of 
religion  and  new  modes  of  life,  but  Virginia  society  always  re- 
mained predominantly  English. 

Religion  and  education  were  not  wholly  neglected  in  Vir- 
ginia. Indeed,  the  former,  for  a  time,  received  very  minute  at- 
tention. Services  were  held  under  a  tent  soon  after  the  colonists 
landed,  and  conformity  to  the  Church  of  England  was  required. 
Dale's  famous  (or  infamous)  martial  code  required  attendance  at 
the  daily  services  and  imposed  the  penalty  of  death  for  failure  to 
attend  on  Sunday,  but  this  severity  was  soon  relaxed.15  Non-con- 
formists were  persecuted,  but  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  finally  se- 
cured toleration. 

14  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  150. 

15  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America,"  vol.  i.  139. 


68  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1632 

II 

MARYLAND 

The  founding  of  Maryland  marked  a  new  departure  in  the 
form  of  colonial  government,  for  the  plantation  and  government 
of  the  colony  were  both  entrusted  to  an  individual  called  a  lord  pro- 
prietor. In  previous  cases  the  founding  had  been  done  by  cor- 
porations. The  model  for  the  proprietary  colony  was  found  in 
the  great  Palatinate  of  Durham.16  In  mediaeval  times  kings  often 
found  it  convenient:  especially  on  the  continent,  to  grant  powers 
of  government  that  were  almost  regal  in  extent  to  some  feudal 
lord  in  a  border  province,  such  territories  being  called  palatinates. 
The  object  of  this  was  to  erect  a  sort  of  buffer  state  to  serve  as  a 
protection  to  the  kingdom  from  invasion.  The  county  of  Dur- 
ham, on  the  Scotch  border,  had  been  erected  into  such  a  state  by 
William  the  Conqueror,  and  still  retained  much  of  its  old-time  in- 
dependence at  this  time.17  This  was  now  taken  as  a  model  for  the 
proprietary  province  and  was  closely  followed  in  the  charter  of 
Maryland. 

George  Calvert,  whom  King  James  had  raised  to  an  Irish 
peerage  with  the  title  of  Lord  Baltimore,  was  a  member  of  the 
London  Company  and  was  very  much  interested  in  colonization, 
his  first  two  attempts  having  failed,  one  in  Newfoundland  be- 
cause of  the  inhospitable  climate  and  the  opposition  of  the  French, 
the  other  in  Virginia  because  of  religious  intolerance.  Calvert, 
having  become  a  Catholic,  now  asked  for  a  slice  of  that  same 
Virginia  territory  from  which  he  had  been  driven  out  on  account 
of  his  religious  views.  He  was  granted  the  land  between  the 
Potomac  River  and  the  fortieth  parallel  of  latitude,  which  was 
the  southern  boundary  of  New  England,  and  asked  that  the  prov- 
ince be  named  Maryland  in  honor  of  his  queen,  Henrietta  Maria. 
Together  with  the  grant  he  also  acquired  a  boundary  dispute  which 
lasted  many  years,  for  the  western  limits  of  the  colony  were  very 
imperfectly  described.  Calvert  had  in  view  a  two-fold  object :  To 
found  a  great  state,  of  which  he  should  be  the  ruler  and  from 
which  he  could  secure  a  revenue,  and  to  provide  a  refuge  for  his 

16  Fiske,  "  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  i.  ch.  viii. 

17  See    Lapsley,    "  The    Palatinate    of    Durham,"    in    "  Harvard    Historical 
Studies,"  No.  viii. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  69 

1632-1634 

persecuted  fellow  Roman  Catholics.  Upon  the  death  of  the  elder 
Calvert,  which  occurred  before  the  grant  had  passed  the  Great 
Seal,  his  plans  were  immediately  taken  up  by  his  son  Cecilius,  to 
whom  the  patent  was  now  issued.  He  was  an  astute,  able,  and 
tactful  individual,  and  like  his  father  was  a  Roman  Catholic  in  re- 
ligion. Never  visiting  Maryland,  he  was,  says  Channing,  the  most 
successful  absentee  landlord  of  his  day.18 

The  terms  of  the  charter  showed  clearly  that  an  attempt  was 
being  made  to  transplant  feudalism,  including  the  manorial  system, 
to  America.  It  defined  the  relations  of  the  proprietor  to  the  king 
and  to  his  subjects.  He  was  to  send  the  king  two  Indian  arrows 
each  year  and  one-fifth  of  all  the  gold  and  silver  mined  in  the 
province;  but  with  this  exception  he  was  to  be  practically  a  king 
himself  with  independent  powers.  He  was  given  the  right  to  de- 
clare war,  make  peace,  appoint  all  officers,  from  the  lowest  to 
the  highest,  proclaim  martial  law,  confer  titles,  grant  pardons,  etc. 
But  this  despotism  was  mixed  with  a  little  democracy,  which  soon 
leavened  the  whole  lump  for  the  proprietor,  for  he  was  to  summon 
the  freemen  to  assist  him  in  making  laws,  and  was  forbidden  to 
tax  them  without  their  consent.  Lord  Baltimore  attempted  to  ini- 
tiate legislation  himself,  leaving  to  the  colonists  only  the  right 
of  assent,  but  they  resisted  at  the  outset  and  soon  won. 

Baltimore  was  a  tolerant  man,  but  it  is  not  wholly  due  to 
this  fact  that  Maryland  became  the  first  colony  where  religious  tol- 
eration was  practiced.  The  Catholic  minority,  represented  by  the 
proprietors,  were  in  control,  but  still  a  minority,  and  a  minority 
can  always  be  trusted  to  be  tolerant  when  they  are  at  the  mercy 
of  a  majority.  Moreover,  the  charter  itself  provided  that  all 
churches  should  be  consecrated  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
Church  of  England,  although  this  probably  was  intended  merely 
to  guard  against  making  Catholicism  an  established  religion.  Had 
Calvert  attempted  to  exclude  Protestants,  he  would  only  have 
raised  a  storm  of  opposition  both  in  Maryland  and  in  England, 
which  would  have  been  fatal  to  hie  whole  project.  It  was  all  these 
reasons  combined  which  for  a  time  made  Maryland,  in  practice,  a 
colony  of  religious  freedom. 

In  March,  1634,  Leonard  Calvert,  brother  to  the  proprietor, 
arrived  in  Maryland,  bringing  about  two  hundred  settlers  on  two 

18  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  250:  see  also  Bernard  Steiner. 
"  Beginnings  of  Maryland,"  in  "  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,"  vol.  xxi, 
P-  368. 


70  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1634 

small  vessels,  the  Ark  and  the  Dove.  The  material  for  the  new 
colony  consisted  of  some  twenty  gentlemen;  the  rest  were  labor- 
ing men  and  artisans.  Most  of  the  gentlemen  were  Roman  Catho- 
lics, while  a  majority  of  the  laborers  were  probably  Protestants.19 
They  gained  the  friendship  of  the  Indians  at  the  outset  by  pur- 
chasing their  land  and  by  treating  them  kindly,  a  relation  which 
was  not  seriously  disturbed  for  many  years.  Soon  after  his  ar- 
rival, Governor  Calvert  paid  a  visit  to  the  "  Emperor  of  Pas- 
catacacy,"  as  the  Indian  chief  who  exercised  sovereignty  over  the 
adjacent  forests  was  called,  and  received  a  hospitable  welcome  from 
this  dusky  potentate.  He  not  only  gave  the  newcomers  permission 
to  settle  on  his  lands,  but  placed  at  their  disposal  one-half  the  huts 
of  the  village  and  did  all  in  his  power  to  make  them  comfortable 
and  happy.  The  first  settlement  was  made  on  an  island  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Potomac,  where  they  proceeded  to  lay  out  a  town, 
which  they  called  St.  Mary's,  in  allusion  to  the  queen,  and  the  col- 
onists being  thrifty  and  aided  by  very  favorable  auspices,  pros- 
pered, at  least  for  a  time. 

The  remarkable  friendliness  of  the  Indians  was  exemplified 
in  many  ways.  The  missionaries  who  had  accompanied  the  colo- 
nists from  England  began  at  once  on  their  labors  and  found  the 
natives  favorable  subjects  for  conversion.  Many  readily  accepted 
Christianity,  and  the  chief  himself  asked  to  be  baptized  and  married 
according  to  the  Christian  rites,  and  brought  his  little  daughter  to 
be  educated  in  the  settlement. 

With  the  Indians  of  the  region  thus  well  disposed,  it  would 
seem  that  the  peace  of  the  colony  was  thereby  assured ;  .but  the  in- 
evitable affliction  of  the  colonists  from  hostility  from  without  was 
soon  to  overtake  them. 

This  disturbing  element  was  found  in  a  trading  post  of  Vir- 
ginians nearby,  who  refused  to  be  placated.  These  good  church- 
men were  not  pleased  with  the  prospect  of  having  "  Papists  "  for 
neighbors.     Besides,  the  country  now  called  Maryland  had  been 

10  Browne,  "  History  of  Maryland,"  p.  23.  "  The  statement  that  the  policy 
of  toleration  was  unavoidable,"  says  Dr.  George  Park  Fisher,  "  is  only  a  fraction 
of  the  truth.  It  fai!.i  to  do  full  justice  to  the  spirit  of  the  founders  of  Mary- 
land. There  i.;  no  reason  to  thin!:  that  Cecilius  Calvert,  any  more  than  his  father, 
would  have  yielded  io  any  demand,  had  it  been  made,  to  deprive  their  fellow 
disciples  of  the  Roman  Church  of  religious  liberty;  nor  can  it  be  shown  that 
under  any  circumstances  they  would  have  felt  disposed  to  withhold  an  equal  tol- 
eration from  Protestants." — "  The  Colonial  Era,"  p.  65.  See  also  C.  C.  Hall, 
"The  Lords  Baltimore  and  the  Maryland  Palatinate,"  Lecture  iii. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  71 

1634-1649 

included  in  the  grant  made  to  them  by  the  charter  of  1609. 
By  the  annulment  of  their  charter  in  1624  the  province  had  indeed 
reverted  to  the  Crown,  but  the  Virginians  still  felt  that  this  terri- 
tory was  rightfully  theirs.  More  than  a  year  before  the  grant 
was  made  to  Calvert,  one  of  their  number,  William  Claiborne, 
originally  a  surveyor  of  Jamestown,  later  treasurer  of  the  colony, 
had  settled  on  Kent  Island,  in  the  upper  Chesapeake,  within  the 
bounds  of  Maryland.  Baltimore's  attempt  to  subject  him  to  his 
government  was  resisted  and  brought  on  a  chronic  state  of  trou- 
ble which  lasted  for  more  than  ten  years.  Sometimes  it  broke  out 
into  open  war,  in  the  course  of  which  men  on  both  sides  were 
killed  or  wounded  and  others  were  hanged  as  pirates.  In  1645 
Claiborne  succeeded  in  driving  out  Calvert  and  attempted  to  take 
the  government  of  Maryland  in  charge,  but  the  latter  found  refuge 
in  Virginia  —  a  fact  which  shows  that  neither  the  government  of 
Virginia  nor  the  people  as  a  whole  was  very  hostile  to  him  —  and 
soon  after  recovered  his  own,  permanently  subjecting  Kent  Island 
to  his  control.  Claiborne  was  attainted  by  the  Maryland  assem- 
bly and  his  property  declared  forfeited.  The  controversy  ulti- 
mately was  carried  to  the  English  courts,  and  a  decision  followed  in 
due  course  establishing  Baltimore's  title  to  Kent  Island,  at  least  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  lawyers.20 

The  evolution  of  the  Maryland  legislature  had  a  curious  his- 
tory. At  first  it  was  a  primary  assembly  in  which  every  freeman 
might  be  represented  by  proxy.  As  a  result  of  this  practice,  the 
governor  and  his  secretary,  both  of  whom  were  appointees  of  the 
proprietor,  sometimes  held  enough  proxies  from  absent  freemen 
to  outvote  all  those  present.  On  one  occasion  a  freeman  held  sev- 
enty-odd proxies,  whicVi  gave  him  control  of  the  assembly.  Later 
representation  became  the  rule,  but  freemen  might,  and  actually 
did,  claim  the  right  to  sit  in  person.  In  1647  *ne  purely  representa- 
tive system  was  adopted,  and  three  years  later  the  legislature  was 
made  bicameral.21 

The  Protestant  party  grew  apace  in  Maryland  as  the  religious 
troubles  became  more  acute  in  England.  The  toleration  practiced 
by  the  proprietor  from  the  first  was  now  enacted  by  statute.  This 
famous  "  Toleration  Act,"  passed  in  1649,  provided  that  no  one 
professing  Christianity  should  "  in  any  ways  be  molested  or  dis- 

20  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  258. 

21  See  Mereness,  "  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary  Province,"  p.  196. 


72  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1649-1715 

countenanced  for  or  in  respect  of  his  or  her  religion  nor  in  the 
free  exercise  thereof."  But  one  was  required  to  be  a  Christian 
of  some  sort,  or  keep  a  bridle  on  his  tongue,  for  there  were  severe 
laws  against  blasphemers  and  profaners  and  gossipers,  and,  indeed, 
Jews,  Unitarians  and  others  were  excepted  from  its  benefits.  This 
seems  to  have  been  a  sort  of  a  compromise  between  the  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  but  during  the  period  of  the  Commonwealth 
the  dissensions  between  them  became  so  violent  that  civil  war 
broke  out.  The  Puritans  rejected  the  Toleration  Act  and  passed 
one  tolerating  everybody,  says  Fiske,  "  except  Catholics,  Episco- 
palians, and  anybody  else  who  disagreed  with  them."  In  a  pitched 
battle  they  defeated  the  Catholics  and  imprisoned  the  governor, 
Stone,  Leonard  Calvert's  successor,  who,  though  a  Protestant, 
sided  with  the  proprietor.  Cromwell  now  appears  to  have  thought 
that  the  Parliamentary  Commissioners  had  gone  too  far,  and  the 
province  was  restored  to  Lord  Baltimore  (1657),  who  thereupon 
promised  never  to  repeal  the  law  granting  to  the  people  freedom  of 
worship. 

This  marked  the  beginning  of  another  era  of  prosperity  for 
the  colony.  In  1661  Charles  Calvert,  son  of  the  proprietor,  came 
out  as  governor  and  served  ably  for  fourteen  years,  or  until  the 
death  of  his  father  (1675),  when  he  himself  became  the  proprietor. 
Maryland  became  widely  known  for  her  religious  freedom  and 
this  attracted  to  her  borders  many  Quakers,  Dutch,  Germans, 
and  Huguenots,  who  were  seeking  homes  from  religious  persecu- 
tion. Still  the  colonists  were  not  without  cause  for  complaint. 
Among  their  grievances  were  the  imposition  of  a  property  qualifi- 
cation for  suffrage,  the  boundary  dispute  with  William  Penn,  and 
the  enforcement  of  the  Navigation  Act.  The  last  in  particular  was 
galling  to  the  Marylanders,  as  they  originally  enjoyed  freedom  of 
trade. 

The  reign  of  James  II.  was  marked  by  the  revocation  of 
many  charters  and  Lord  Baltimore's  came  near  suffering  a  like  fate, 
but  was  saved  by  the  expulsion  of  James  himself  from  England 
(1688).  The  new  sovereigns,  William  and  Mary,  seemed  not  to 
have  been  favorably  impressed  with  Lord  Baltimore  and  revoked 
his  charter  in  1691,  reducing  Maryland  to  the  position  of  a  royal 
province.  Soon  after  this  the  Church  of  England  was  established 
by  law  and  the  persecution  of  dissenters,  especially  Catholics,  was 
begun.     In  consequence  the  prosperity  of  the  colony  suffered  a  de- 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  73 

1653-1665 

cline  until  171 5,  when  it  was  restored  to  the  fourth  Lord  Baltimore, 
who  had  become  a  Protestant.  It  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
family  from  that  time  until  the  Revolution.22 


Ill 

THE    CAROLINAS 

The  attempts  of  Raleigh  and  of  the  French  Huguenots  to  set- 
tle Carolina  have  already  been  described.  Not  many  years  elapsed 
after  the  planting  of  Virginia  before  the  adventurous  hunters  of 
that  colony  were  familiar  with  the  country  to  the  south  of  them 
as  far  as  the  Chowan  River.  In  1653  a  company  of  Virginia 
dissenters,  led  by  Roger  Green,  went  south  in  search  of  religious 
freedom  and  settled  on  the  Chowan  and  Roanoke  Rivers.  This 
settlement,  called  Albemarle,  was  the  first  permanent  colony  within 
the  limits  of  the  present  State  of  North  Carolina.  Shortly  after- 
wards other  victims  of  religious  persecution  from  New  England 
settled  on  the  Cape  Fear  River,  but  they  were  not  so  careful  to 
preserve  their  history  as  those  whom  they  left  behind,  and  we 
know  very  little  about  them.  By  some  act  they  incurred  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Indians  and  in  a  few  years  the  survivors  abandoned  the 
colony  or  were  absorbed  by  a  company  of  settlers  from  the  Barba- 
does  (1665)  led  by  Sir  John  Yeamans. 

By  means  of  two  charters,  (1663,  1665)  Charles  II.  conveyed 
to  a  coterie  of  his  favorites  the  vast  domain  lying  between  Vir- 
ginia and  Florida,  that  is,  between  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  min- 
utes and  the  twenty-ninth  degree  north  latitude,  westward  to  the 
"  South  Sea,"  or  Pacific  Ocean.  This  grant  insured  a  boundary 
dispute  with  the  Spanish,  for  they  had  settled  north  of  the  latter 
line  one  hundred  years  before.  Among  the  proprietors  were  Sir 
John  Berkeley,  the  Duke  of  Albemarle  and  Lord  Ashley-Cooper, 
afterwards  known  as  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  the  Earl  of  Claren- 
don, and  Sir  George  Carteret.23  At  their  request  John  Locke, 
the  English  philosopher,  drew  up  what  was  perhaps  the  most  elab- 
orate and   complicated   scheme   of   government  ever   devised   for 

22  Read  Brantly,  "  The  English  in  Maryland."  in  Winsor,  "'  Nar.  and  Crit. 
Hist."  vol.  iii.  ch.  xiii.;  also  Eggleston,  "Beginners  of  a  Nation,"  pp.  220-257. 

23  McCrady,   "  History  of  South  Carolina  under   Proprietary  Government," 
pp.  61-65. 


74  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1665-1711 

any  colony.  It  was  called  the  "  Fundamental  Constitution,"  or 
"  Grand  Model."  The  colonists  were  to  be  divided  into  four  es- 
tates known  as  proprietaries,  land-graves,  caciques  and  leet-men 
or  commons.  Corresponding  to  these  the  province  was  to  be  di- 
vided into  seigniories,  baronies,  precincts  and  colonies.  The  leet- 
men  were  to  be  practically  serfs  bound  to  the  soil.  The  object 
was  to  establish  "  the  interests  of  the  lords  proprietors  "  and  a  gov- 
ernment "  most  agreeable  to  monarchy  —  and  that  we  may  avoid 
erecting  a  numerous  democracy."  But  the  forest  is  inevitably  the 
home  of  liberty,  and  this  mental  creation  of  the  philosopher  fell  of 
its  own  weight.  The  several  attempts  made  to  put  it  in  force  only 
irritated  the  colonists  and  it  was  finally  abandoned.24 

One  William  Drummond,  a  Scotch  Presbyterian  clergyman, 
became  the  first  governor  of  Albemarle,  as  the  colony  was  called, 
and  summoned  an  assembly  in  1667,  which  enacted  several  laws  for 
the  purpose  of  attracting  settlers,  among  them  one  containing  an 
exemption  from  taxation  for  a  year  and  release  for  five  years  from 
liability  for  debts  contracted  elsewhere.  In  derision  the  Virginians 
named  the  colony  "  Rogue's  Harbor,"  from  the  character  of  the 
newcomers  who  were  thus  attracted.  The  planting  of  a  more 
promising  colony  in  what  is  now  South  Carolina,  by  which  the 
Cape  Fear  settlement  was  soon  absorbed,  caused  the  proprietors  to 
neglect  Albemarle.  Owing  to  incapable  and  dishonest  governors 
of  the  Seth  Sothel  type,  the  prosperity,  contentment  and  good  order 
of  the  colony  were  greatly  retarded  during  the  rest  of  the  cen- 
tury; population  diminished  instead  of  increased,  and  many  of 
those  remaining  moved  back  into  the  forests  to  secure  their  free- 
dom. 

The  two  settlements  thus  established  gradually  came  to  be 
known  as  North  and  South  Carolina,  but  their  governments  were 
united  for  a  time  in  1695,  when  John  Archdale,  a  good  Quaker 
and  one  of  the  proprietors,  came  out  as  governor  of  both  colonies. 
During  the  next  fifteen  years  North  Carolina  received  many  new 
settlers,  who  were  not  rogues,  but  sturdy  Germans  and  honest 
Huguenots.  This  expansion  necessitated  encroachment  upon  the 
lands  of  the  red  man  and  brought  with  it  a  train  of  Indian  trou- 
bles. In  171 1  the  Tuscaroras  and  other  Indians  fell  upon  the  set- 
tlers on  the  Roanoke  and  at  New  Berne  and  slaughtered  over  two 

24  Fiske,  "Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  271-273;  McCrady, 
"  History  of  South  Carolina  Under  Proprietary  Government,"  ch.  iv. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  75 

1670-1729 

hundred  of  them  in  cold  blood.25  But  a  stinging  blow  was  inflicted 
on  them  by  a  body  of  militia  under  John  Barnwell  and  Tames 
More  near  the  Neuse,  where  four  hundred  braves  were  killed.  At 
last  the  Tuscaroras  returned  to  New  York,  whence  their  fathers  had 
emigrated,  and  joined  the  Iroquois,  or  Five  Nations,  thus  making 
them  the  Six  Nations. 

One  of  the  governors  of  North  Carolina,  Charles  Eden,  de- 
serves mention  because  of  his  excellent  rule  (1714-1722),  but  after 
his  death  in  1729,  the  proprietors  meantime  having  sold  out  to  the 
Crown,  the  colonists  were  divided  into  North  and  South  Carolina, 
and  each  thenceforth  became  a  royal  province.  After  that  the  gov- 
ernors were  of  varying  ability  and  morality.  Some  were  good, 
but  many  were  incompetent  and  rapacious.  Still  the  colony  waxed 
stronger  with  every  passing  year.  Germans  and  Scotch-Irish  came 
down  from  Pennsylvania  and  were  followed  by  a  few  "  poor 
whites "  from  Virginia.26  They  settled  in  the  foothills  of  the 
Blue  Ridge  Mountains  and  gradually  pushed  westward  until  the 
summit  was  passed.  There  was  at  least  one  marked  difference 
between  the  eastern  and  western  settlements.  The  former  were 
slaveholding,  while  the  latter  had  very  few  slaves,  a  difference 
partly  due  to  physical  conditions.  Neither  was  noted  for  com- 
mercial activity,  though  the  eastern  settlements  carried  on  a  con- 
siderable trade  with  the  New  England  smugglers.  The  principal 
industries  of  the  colony  were  rice  and  tobacco  growing;  the  manu- 
facture of  naval  stores,  particularly  tar,  pitch,  and  turpentine  from 
the  pine  forests,  and  the  raising  of  cattle  and  swine. 

The  first  permanent  colony  in  South  Carolina  was  planted  on 
the  bank  of  the  Ashley  River  in  1670  by  William  Sayle,  who 
brought  over  three  shiploads  of  emigrants  from  the  Barbadoes,  a 
hundred  years  after  Ribaut's  disastrous  attempt  to  plant  a  French 
settlement  in  these  parts.  The  next  year  Sir  John  Yeamans  joined 
the  colony  with  two  hundred  slaves,  and  the  same  year  witnessed 
the  coming  of  two  shiploads  of  Dutch  emigrants  from  New  York. 
It  was  the  policy  of  the  proprietors  to  attract  settlers  from  other 
colonies,  and  they  also  wished  to  have  them  grouped  about  some 
urban  center.  A  place  more  suitable  for  this  than  the  point  first 
settled  was  found  near  by,  and  the  seat  of  government,  together 

25  Rivers,  "  The  Carolinas,"  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist."  vol.  iv.  p.  298. 

26  See   McCrady,   "  South    Carolina   under   Royal   Government,"   vol.   ii.    pp. 
623-625. 


76  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1680-1760 

with  the  name,  Charleston,  was  transferred  hither  in  1680. 
Within  two  years  the  town  was  regularly  laid  off  with  wide  and 
uniform  streets.  Such  was  the  beginning  of  the  Charleston  of  the 
present  day.27 

The  one  redeeming  feature  of  the  "  Fundamental  Constitu- 
tion," was  its  promise  of  religious  freedom.  Even  before  the  revo- 
cation of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685  French  Huguenots  had  begun 
to  arrive  in  South  Carolina.  After  the  revocation  they  came  in 
large  numbers  and  had  no  little  influence  for  good  upon  the  char- 
acter of  the  colony,  for  they  were  an  industrious,  intelligent,  and 
virtuous  people.  Denied  political  rights  for  a  time,  and  looked 
upon  with  suspicion  by  the  English  settlers  in  Carolina,  they  soon 
came  to  be  admired  and  were  accorded  full  political  rights.  A 
small  company  of  Presbyterians  from  Scotland  planted  themselves 
at  the  ill-starred  Port  Royal,  but  the  settlement  was  soon  wiped  out 
of  existence  by  Spaniards  from  St.  Augustine  (1686). 

The  Spanish  were  jealous  of  these  encroaching  settlements 
and  also  irritated  because  pirates,  whom  they  believed  to  be  shel- 
tered in  Charleston,  preyed  upon  their  commerce.  The  English 
settlers,  on  the  other  hand,  were  much  aggrieved  when  the  pro- 
prietors forbade  them  to  take  revenge  upon  the  colony  of  a  nation 
with  which  England  was  at  peace.  In  171 5  some  Irish  settled  in 
the  region  of  Port  Royal,  which  had  been  devastated  by  the  Span- 
iards thirty  years  previous.  All  the  settlements  at  this  time  were 
still  on  the  seaboard ;  indeed,  the  back  country  was  held  by  the 
Indians  until  1755.  After  that  date  many  emigrants  from  the 
other  colonies  as  far  north  as  Pennsylvania  moved  into  this  re- 
gion. By  1760  South  Carolina  contained  about  one  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  souls,  three-fourths  of  whom  were  slaves. 

That  South  Carolina  was  so  distinctly  a  slave  State  was  due 
to  two  causes :  First,  her  early  settlers  were  from  the  Barbadoes 
and  were  thoroughly  imbued  with  belief  in  the  slave  system;  and, 
second,  it  was  due  to  the  climate  and  the  physical  features  of  the 
country,  which  largely  determined  the  character  of  its  industries. 
Rice  and  indigo  were  the  chief  products.  Both,  especially  the 
former,  grew  best  in  marshy  ground,  and  the  white  man  could  not 
endure  so  well  as  the  negro  the  heat  and  the  malarial  atmosphere 
of  the  swamps  which  were  adapted  to  rice  culture.  But  for  him 
their  reclamation  would  probably  have  been  delayed  many  years. 
27  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  xiii. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  77 

1703-1715 

As  the  negro  showed  very  little  disposition  to  labor  without  a  mas- 
ter, there  seemed  to  be  no  alternative  for  slavery,  if  a  rice  grow- 
ing colony  was  to  be  built  up  in  South  Carolina. 

Unfortunately  the  settlers  from  the  Barbadoes  were  only  too 
familiar  with  the  Spanish  custom  of  enslaving  the  Indians,  and 
they  introduced  it  in  their  new  home.  So  late  as  the  beginning 
of  the  eighteenth  century  Indians  made  up  one-fourth  of  the  slave 
population,28  a  condition  which  could  have  had  only  an  irritating 
effect  on  the  relations  subsisting  between  the  settlers  and  the  na- 
tives. But  the  wily  Spaniard  knew  how  to  make  the  simple  red 
man  his  tool,  and,  with  a  shameless  disregard  of  the  Treaty  of 
Utrecht,  proceeded  to  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
English  settlements.  The  war  began  in  17 15,  when  the  Yamassees 
fell  upon  the  scattered  farmers  with  savage  fury  and  slew  nearly 
one  hundred  in  a  day.29  The  contest  lasted  ten  months,  but  the 
Indians  were  finally  defeated  and  driven  into  Florida.  Charles 
Craven,  who  was  governor  at  the  time,  played  a  conspicuous  part 
in  the  war  and  has  had  a  thread  of  romance  woven  about  his  name 
by  the  novelist,  William  Gilmore  Simms. 

Like  her  nearest  neighbor  on  the  north,  South  Carolina  had  a 
varied  experience  with  her  governors.  Among  those  of  merit 
were  xArchdale,  already  mentioned,  and  Joseph  Blake,  a  nephew  of 
Admiral  Blake,  who  swept  the  Dutch  from  the  sea  in  the  war 
between  England  and  Holland.  The  advent  of  Sir  Nathaniel 
Johnson  in  1703  marked  the  beginning  of  a  chronic  state  of  turbu- 
lence lasting  for  some  time.30  But  the  colonists  showed  them- 
selves in  every  way  capable  of  coping  with  their  would-be  op- 
pressors. The  very  foundations  of  the  colony  were  based  on  lib- 
erty, and  it  was  maintained  by  a  popular  assembly  which  met  a 
short  time  after  the  first  settlers  arrived.  Here,  as  in  North  Caro- 
lina, the  "  Grand  Model  "  was  suspended  at  first  as  unsuitecl  to  an 
infant  colony.  In  1687  an  effort  was  made  by  the  proprietors  to 
put  it  in  operation,  but  the  people  resisted  and  based  their  resist- 
ance on  that  clause  of  the  charter  which  declared  that  the  proprie- 
tors should  make  laws  only  "  by  and  with  the  advice,  assent  and 
approbation  of  the  freemen."  The  contest  lasted  several  years,  but 
the  popular  cause  won  and  the  "  Grand  Model  "  was  overthrown. 

28  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America,"  vol.  i.  p.  359. 

29  Fiske,  "  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighors,"  vol.  ii.  p.  306. 

30  See  W.  Roy  Smith,  "  South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Province,"  p.  9. 


78  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1704-1719 

The  early  years  of  the  colony  were  marked  by  a  conflict  over 
the  religious  question.  Dissenters,  except  Catholics,  had  been  tol- 
erated in  the  absence  of  legislation  against  them.  About  this  time 
Lord  Granville,  a  High  Churchman,  gained  the  ascendency  among 
the  proprietors  and  sought  to  enforce  conformity  among  the  colo- 
nists. The  dissenters  had  shown  their  liberality  by  voting  money 
to  support  the  Church  of  England,  but  this  was  not  enough.  By 
packing  the  council  and  by  frauds  in  the  election  of  the  rep- 
resentatives, Governor  Johnson  secured  the  passage  of  an  Act  in 
1704  excluding  dissenters  from  the  assembly.  Several  members 
had  been  absent  when  the  Act  was  passed,  but  they  took  their 
seats  at  the  autumn  session  of  1706  and  voted  to  repeal  the  ob- 
noxious measure.  The  governor  and  council  opposed  it,  where- 
upon the  colonists  sent  an  agent  to  appeal  to  the  proprietors. 
Meeting  with  no  success,  they  turned  to  the  House  of  Lords,  who 
recommended  the  veto  of  the  measure  by  the  queen.  The  Board 
of  Trade  even  favored  the  forfeiture  of  the  charter,  but  only  the 
Act  was  declared  void.31  However,  the  Church  of  England  was 
established  by  law,  although  the  dissenters  appear  to  have  been  in 
the  majority  —  they  claimed  to  make  up  two-thirds  of  the  popu- 
lation and  continued  to  enjoy  this  advantage  until  the  Revolution. 

Hardly  had  another  decade  passed  before  the  proprietors  had 
forgotten  the  lesson  of  this  contest  and  were  again  exasperating 
the  settlers.  The  expense  of  the  war  with  the  Yamassees  bore 
heavily  upon  the  colonists  and  they,  with  full  justice,  called  upon 
the  proprietors  to  share  the  burden.  But  this  the  proprietors  re- 
fused to  do,  although  they  derived  a  large  income  from  the  quit- 
rents;  nor  would  they  allow  the  assembly  to  levy  import  duties  or 
sell  the  public  lands  for  this  purpose.  Another  cause  of  irritation 
was  the  fact  that  there  was  only  one  polling  place  in  the  colony, 
namely,  at  Charleston.  Not  only  was  this  a  source  of  great  incon- 
venience to  the  settlers  of  the  outlying  districts,  but  it  also  gave 
the  official  party  an  undue  weight  of  influence.  At  length  a  law 
was  passed  substituting  local  representation  for  the  existing  method 
of  election.  The  law  was  put  in  force  at  once  and  a  new  assembly 
was  elected  under  it,  but  the  proprietors  vetoed  the  law  as  soon 
as  it  reached  them  and  ordered  the  governor  to  dissolve  the  assem- 
bly. Remonstrance  produced  no  effect.  In  17 19  a  new  assembly 
was  called,  but  it  was  no  more  ready  to  submit  than  its  predecessor. 
81  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America,"  vol.  i.  p.  369. 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  79 

1719-1776 

It  drew  up  a  list  of  grievances  and  declared  that  the  rights  of  the 
people  had  been  violated,  especially  in  the  packing  of  the  council, 
which  made  it  an  illegal  body.  There  being  no  redress  through 
constitutional  forms,  it  assumed  constituent  powers,  deposed  the 
governor,  chose  another,  and  asked  the  Crown  to  make  the  colony 
a  royal  province  (1719).  The  request  was  granted,  the  political 
rights  of  the  proprietors  were  annulled,  and  their  territorial  rights 
were  brought  up  under  an  act  of  Parliament. 

From  this  time  on  the  growth  of  the  colony  was  rapid  and 
continuous,  although  it  was  not  wholly  free  from  political  unrest. 
Indeed,  the  colonists  showed  no  more  fear  of  the  royal  governors 
than  they  had  of  the  proprietors,  and  steadily  encroached  upon  their 
powers.  In  1748  Governor  Glenn  reported  that  the  people,  by 
means  of  the  assembly,  "  had  the  whole  of  the  administration  in 
their  hands,  and  the  governor,  and  thereby  the  Crown,  is  stripped 
of  its  power."  But  there  was  one  thing  for  which  the  assembly 
cannot  be  commended  —  its  passion  for  cheap  money.  The  re- 
peated issues  of  paper  money  had  here  the  same  blighting  effect  as 
in  New  England. 

The  student  of  the  history  of  liberty  will  find  no  more  interest- 
ing pages  than  the  story  of  its  struggles  in  the  Carolinas.  The 
avowed  object  of  the  proprietors  was  to  found  a  monarchial  sys- 
tem, which  even  then  was  beginning  to  break  down  in  England. 
If  the  Anglo-Saxon  at  home  was  steadily  carrying  out  his  deter- 
mination to  control  his  own  political  fortunes,  what  would  he  do 
when  given  the  forest  and  three  thousand  miles  of  water  as  allies? 
Yet  here  was  exhibited  one  of  those  curious  contradictions  in  which 
history  abounds.  New  England  was  founded  by  men  seeking  re- 
ligious freedom  for  themselves,  yet  they  manifested  a  spirit 
of  intolerance  such  as  was  found  nowhere  else  in  America.  South 
Carolina  was  building  up  a  splendid  aristocracy  on  a  basis  of  slav- 
ery, yet  nowhere  was  the  spirit  of  liberty  stronger.  If  this  spirit 
often  manifested  itself  in  turbulence,  especially  in  North  Carolina, 
this  was  due  to  oppression  and  not  to  any  noteworthy  lack  of  popu- 
lar morality  or  to  a  spirit  of  unrest  such  as  may  be  seen  in  South 
America  to-day.  Most  of  the  bad  governors  were  endured  as 
one  of  the  ills  of  life ;  those  who  could  not  be  endured  were  impris- 
oned or  banished.  Long  before  the  final  break  with  England  the 
Carolinas  were  well  trained  in  the  art  of  revolution.32 

32  The  most  comprehensive  history  of  South   Carolina  during  the   colonial 


80  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1733 

IV 
GEORGIA 

The  last  of  the  southern,  and  of  the  thirteen  colonies,  to  be 
founded  was  Georgia.  It  also  was  a  proprietary  colony,  and  its 
chief  proprietor  was  General  James  Oglethorpe,  who  had  served  in 
the  European  wars  under  the  great  Marlborough  and  Prince 
Eugene.  At  home,  as  a  member  of  Parliament,  he  became  a  so- 
cial reformer  and  was  particularly  interested  in  the  debtor  class, 
whose  condition  at  that  time  was  particularly  unfortunate  in  view  of 
the  severe  laws  against  insolvents.  Oglethorpe  made  an  examina- 
tion of  the  debtors'  prisons  and  found  their  condition  so  bad  that 
he  determined  to  offer  the  inmates  a  home  in  the  forests  of  Amer- 
ica, where  they  might  retrieve  their  fortunes.  He  entertained  no 
thought  of  personal  gain,  no  ambition  of  a  sordid  character;  his 
entire  project  was  open,  disinterested,  charitable,  loyal,  and  patri- 
otic.33 

The  territory  south  of  the  Savannah  River  was  included  in 
the  Carolina  grant,  but  it  had  never  been  occupied  by  settlement, 
and  with  the  revocation  of  the  charter  it  reverted  to  the  Crown. 
Oglethorpe  now  formed  a  company  and  prayed  the  Crown  for  a 
grant  of  this  territory  for  the  purpose  mentioned  above,  as  also 
to  form  a  sort  of  military  barrier  between  Carolina  and  the  Span- 
iards in  Florida.  The  grant,  which  was  named  Georgia  in  honor 
of  the  king,  included  the  country  between  the  Savannah  and  Al- 
tamaha  Rivers,  and  extended  westward  to  the  "  South  Sea."  The 
government  of  the  colony  was  committed  to  a  company  of  twenty- 
one  trustees,  by  whom  all  officers  were  to  be  appointed  for  the 
first  four  years,  and  after  that  by  the  Crown.  Slavery  and  traf- 
fic in  rum  were  prohibited,  no  one  could  own  more  than  five  hun- 
dred acres  of  land,  and  this  must  descend  in  the  male  line.  For- 
eigners were  to  have  equal  rights  with  Englishmen,  and  all  religions 
except  the  Roman  Catholic  were  to  be  tolerated.34 

The  first  settlers,  consisting  of  thirty-five  families,  sailed  up 

period   is   McCrady,   "  South   Carolina  under   Proprietary  Government,"   in  two 
volumes ;  see  also  W.  R.  Smith,  "  History  of  South  Carolina  as  a  Royal  Colony." 

33  Jones,  "History  of  Georgia,"  vol.  i.  p.  86. 

34  Jones,  "  The  English  Colonization  of  Georgia,"  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and 
Crit.  Hist.."  vol.  v.  ch.  »i. ;  also  Fiske,  "Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  vol 
ii.  PP-  334-335- 


SOUTHERN     COLONIES  81 

1733-1748 

the  Savannah  River  in  February,  1733,  under  the  personal  leader- 
ship of  Oglethorpe,  and  founded  the  city  of  Savannah,  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty-six  years  after  the  settlement  of  Jamestown.  It 
was  soon  discovered  that  the  debtors  were  not  likely  to  prosper 
much  more  in  their  new  home  than  they  had  done  in  England,  but 
a  more  thrifty  class  came  out  the  following  year  —  a  ship  load  of 
Protestant  refugees  from  Salzburg,  and  these  were  followed  shortly 
thereafter  by  Moravians  and  Highlanders.  Among  the  early  im- 
migrants were  three  men  whose  names  are  forever  linked  with  the 
social  and  religious  history  of  the  time  —  Charles  and  John  Wes- 
ley and  George  Whitefield  —  who  came  as  missionaries  to  the  In- 
dians. The  first  mentioned  served  as  secretary  to  Oglethorpe,  the 
two  latter  were  the  most  powerful  preachers  of  the  time.  The 
magnificent  live  oak  under  which  John  Wesley  sometimes  preached 
is  still  pointed  out  to  the  traveler.  Whitefield  founded  an  orphan 
school  and  established  a  slave  farm  across  the  river  in  South 
Carolina  to  support  it. 

Oglethorpe  served  the  colony  well  for  twelve  years  as  gov- 
ernor. He  established  friendly  relations  with  the  Cherokees,  with 
whom  a  thriving  fur  trade  was  carried  on  in  rivalry  with  the 
Spanish  and  French  settlers,  Augusta  (1734)  being  the  center  of 
this  traffic.  When  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  broke  out 
Oglethorpe  led  an  army  of  invasion  against  St.  Augustine,  but 
failed  to  capture  that  well-fortified  town.35  A  few  years  later  he 
exhibited  no  little  skill  in  repulsing  a  Spanish  invasion  (1742). 
In  1748  General  Oglethorpe  left  Georgia  never  to  return.  Soon 
after  his  arrival  in  England  he  was  promoted  to  the  position  of  a 
full  general  in  the  British  army,  at  the  same  time  retaining  his 
seat  in  Parliament.  Fie  died  in  1785  in  his  ninetieth  year,  the  only 
one  of  the  colonial  founders  who  lived  to  see  the  colonies  inde- 
pendent. 

Up  to  the  departure  of  Oglethorpe  the  progress  of  the  colony 
was  steady,  if  somewhat  slow,  but  after  that  the  settlers  found 
causes  of  complaint.  Chief  of  these  was  the  prohibition  of  slavery. 
Slavery  had  been  prohibited,  not  so  much  on  moral  as  on  economic 
grounds,  it  being  feared  that  it  would  interfere  with  free  white 
labor.  The  settlers  looked  across  the  river  at  their  more  pros- 
perous neighbors  where  slavery  flourished,  and  straightway  de- 
sired it  for  themselves.  After  years  of  importunity  they  finally 
35  Jones,  "  History  of  Georgia,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xxi. 


82  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1748-1776 

secured  it  in  1749,  when  by  act  of  Parliament  Georgia  became  a 
slave  colony.  The  colonists  also  wanted  rum,  at  least  they  wanted 
to  trade  with  the  West  Indies,  and  they  declared  that  this  trade 
was  driven  away  by  the  prohibition  on  the  rum  traffic.  This  re- 
striction was  removed,  as  also  that  upon  the  size  of  an  estate  which 
an  individual  might  own.  The  colonists  again  looked  across  at 
their  neighbors  and  saw  that  they  enjoyed  many  liberties  which 
the  Georgians  were  denied,  and  were  consequently  not  content  un- 
til they  themselves  were  given  a  government  similar  to  that  of 
South  Carolina.  This  came  in  1752,  when  the  charter  was  sur- 
rendered and  Georgia  became  a  royal  province  with  a  legislative 
assembly  elected  by  the  freemen  of  the  colony,  Catholics  excepted, 
and  a  governor  appointed  by  the  king. 

After  these  changes  the  colony  advanced  more  rapidly,  but  at 
the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  it  was  little  better  than  a  frontier 
settlement.  The  chief  industries  were  the  growing  of  rice  and 
indigo,  the  manufacture  of  lumber,  and  the  peltry  trade  with  the 
Indians.  Experiments  were  made  with  the  silkworm  with  a  view 
to  the  production  of  silk,  but  the  business  did  not  prosper  and  was 
soon  abandoned.  Life  in  the  colony  was  of  the  rudest  and  sim- 
plest sort.  Except  Savannah,  which  was  little  more  than  a  wooden 
village,  there  were  no  towns,  and  the  only  roads  were  Indian  trails. 
The  school  facilities  were  very  poor,  and  the  few  ships  which  car- 
ried away  their  rice,  indigo,  lumber  and  peltries  brought  to  the 
Georgians  but  little  contact  with  the  stronger  forces  of  civilization. 


Chapter  IV 


PLANTING   OF   THE    NORTHERN    COLONIES 

1620-1776 


PLYMOUTH 

THE  men  of  the  age  of  discovery  and  exploration  and  of 
the  early  part  of  the  age  of  colonization  were  animated 
mainly  by  the  desire  of  adventure  and  the  thirst  for  gold. 
It  is  pleasant  now  to  turn  to  the  study  of  a  people  who  came  into 
the  forest  to  seek  not  gold  but  God  and  the  right  to  worship  Him 
in  their  own  way.  If  we  find  that  they  were  not  inclined  to  allow 
others  the  same  privilege,  we  must  remember  they  lived  in  an  age 
of  intolerance.  To  say  that  they  sought  the  right  to  worship  God 
in  their  own  way  does  not  mean  that  they  sought  religious  freedom. 
They  wished  to  make  their  own  ideas  dominant  in  England ;  failing 
in  that  they  sought  the  forest  where  they  could  make  them  dominant.1 
The  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  is  commonly  given  as  the  date  of 
the  Protestant  Reformation  in  England,  though  little  more  was  done 
then  than  to  substitute  the  supremacy  of  the  king  for  that  of  the 
Pope  in  matters  of  religion.  As  the  years  passed  by  the  divergence 
between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Catholic  Church  increased ; 
but  a  large  party  within  the  former,  the  Puritans,  desired  still  fur- 
ther to  eliminate  Roman  creeds  and  forms.  Some  of  these  went 
so  far  in  their  dissent  as  to  withdraw  from  the  Established  Church, 
and  became  known  as  Independents  or  Separatists.  The  Presby- 
terian tendency  among  the  latter  contributed  its  part  in  securing 
the  hostility  of  James  I.  His  experience  in  Scotland  had  convinced 
him  that  Presbyterianism  in  the  church  meant  growing  republican- 
ism in  the  state.  It  had  already  limited  his  royal  power  in  Scot- 
land; he  was  determined  it  should  not  do  so  in  England.  The 
church  was  a  part  of  the  state,  consequently  he  could,  with  some 

1 "  The  Religious  Element  in  the   Settlement  of  New   England,"  by  G.   E. 
Ellis,  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist.,  vol.  iii.  ch.  vii. 

83 


84  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1620 

show  of  reason,  regard  an  attack  upon  the  former  as  an  attack  upon 
the  latter.  Tims  he  felt  justified  in  considering  the  dissenters  in- 
imical to  his  government;  and  so  he  determined,  as  he  announced 
at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  to  compel  them  to  conform  or 
to  "  harry  them  out  of  the  land."  2 

Some  conformed,  but  others  were  harried  out  of  the  land.  A 
number  of  the  latter  under  the  leadership  of  John  Robinson,  their 
pastor,  and  William  Brewster,  a  ruling  layman,  found  a  refuge  at 
Leyden  in  Holland ;  but  they  never  became  really  contented  there 
among  an  alien  people.  They  longed  for  the  English  ways  and 
the  English  laws,  and,  not  being  able  to  enjoy  these  upon  their 
native  heath  or  in  Holland,  determined  to  transplant  them  to  the 
forests  of  the  New  World.  This  project  was  not  wholly  at  one 
with  the  objects  of  the  London  Company,  but  they  managed  to 
obtain  a  grant  and  by  promising  obedience  to  the  king,  "  if  the 
thing  commanded  be  not  against  God's  Word,"  secured  his  promise 
not  to  interfere  with  them  if  they  lived  peaceably.  To  secure  the 
necessary  funds  they  formed  a  sort  of  stock  partnership  with  a 
company  of  London  merchants,  who  owned  about  three  fourths 
of  the  shares.  The  communal  system  was  to  obtain  for  seven 
years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  the  corporation  was  to  disband  and 
the  assets  were  to  be  distributed. 

The  Pilgrims,  as  by  this  time  they  had  come  to  be  called,  sailed 
from  Southampton.  Thither  members  of  the  Leyden  congregation 
had  been  brought  by  the  Speedwell,  a  vessel  of  sixty  tons  bought 
for  the  purpose.  The  final  voyage  was  to  be  made  in  the  May- 
flower, a  larger  vessel  which  they  had  hired.  The  smaller  vessel 
was  to  accompany  them;  but  it  proved  unseaworthy,  and  only  the 
Mayflower  made  the  voyage.  It  carried  one  hundred  and  one  Pil- 
grims and  entered  Cape  Cod  harbor  (Provincetown)  November 
n,  1620  (old  style).  On  that  day  the  adult  males,  forty-one  in 
number,  drew  up  a  paper  which  posterity  has  named  the  Mayflower 
Compact.  It  was  simply  an  agreement  to  form  a  body  politic  and 
a  promise  to  give  "  all  due  submission  and  obedience  "  to  the  laws 
it  might  enact.  They  then  elected  John  Carver  governor  and  sent 
out  an  exploring  party.  Finally  a  landing  was  made  at  a  place 
which  they  called  Plymouth,  and  the  work  of  building  cabins  was 
soon  begun.     The  winter  was  not  so  severe  as  it  often  is,  but  nearly 

2  Eggleslon,  "Beginners  of  a   Nation,"  p.    162;  also  Gardiner,  "History  of 
England."  vol.  i.  pp.  153-157- 


3  5? 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  85 

1620-1630 

half  the  company  perished,  among  them  Governor  Carver.  Wil- 
liam Bradford  was  chosen  as  his  successor,  and  for  many  years 
proved  an  able  leader  of  his  people.  The  loss  of  the  first  winter 
was  made  up  the  following  November  by  the  arrival  of  fifty  more 
from  Leyden,  but  the  colony  had  many  difficulties  to  contend  with 
and  its  growth  was  slow.  Ten  years  after  the  first  company  landed 
it  contained  only  about  three  hundred  inhabitants.3 

The  Pilgrims  were  very  fortunate  in  their  relations  with  the 
Indians.  Pestilence  had  decimated  their  number,  and  those  who 
remained  felt  grateful  to  the  English  for  the  restitution  of  some  of 
their  companions  who  had  been  kidnaped.  The  story  of  Samoset's 
entrance  into  their  settlement  crying  "  Welcome,  Englishmen!  "  has 
been  told  many  times.  He  and  another  Indian  named  Squanto, 
who  became  the  agricultural  instructor  of  the  colony,  were  instru- 
mental in  bringing  about  a  treaty  with  their  chief,  Massasoit,  which 
was  faithfully  observed  until  his  death. 

But  if  comparatively  free  from  trouble  with  the  Indians,  the 
Pilgrims  were  not  so  fortunate  in  their  relations  with  men  of  their 
own  color.  Certain  "  lewd  fellows  of  the  baser  sort,"'  who  were 
settled  on  Massachusetts  Bay  in  1622  by  Thomas  Weston  as  a  com- 
mercial venture,  gave  them  no  little  trouble,  but  the  settlement  was 
abandoned  the  next  year.  In  1625  another  settlement  of  a  similar 
kind  was  made  in  the  same  neighborhood  by  Captain  Wollaston. 
The  settlers,  mostly  indented  servants,  under  the  leadership  of 
Thomas  Morton,  soon  drove  out  Wollaston's  agent  and  renamed 
the  place  Merrymount.  The  famous  Maypole  at  Merrymount  and 
its  sequel  make  one  of  the  most  serio-comic  episodes  in  New  Eng- 
land history.  When  they  tossed  off  ten  pounds'  worth  of  strong 
liquor  in  a  morning  and  then  set  up  a  Maypole  round  which,  says 
Bradford,  they  "  frisked  like  fairies,  or  rather  furies,"  in  the  good 
old  English  style,  it  was  too  much  for  the  Puritans  of  Salem  and 
Boston,  and  in  1630  they  proceeded  under  Endicott  to  break  up  the 
settlement,  shipping  Morton  off  to  England.  Some  justification  for 
this  action  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  merrymakers  were 
debauching  the  Indians,  and  also  teaching  them  the  use  of  firearms. 
In  later  years  the  Pilgrims  had  many  disputes  with  Massachusetts, 
especially  in  regard  to  boundaries. 

The  fact  that  the  colonists  had  settled  outside  the  territory  of 
the  Virginia  boundary  rendered  their  grant  of  no  value.  They 
3  Charming.  "  Historv  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  oh.  xi. 


86  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1630-1691 

were  mere  squatters  upon  the  soil  of  the  old  Plymouth  Company, 
which  was  reorganized  in  1620  as  the  Council  for  New  England, 
and  from  this  company  they  now  sought  a  grant.  One  of  doubtful 
legality  was  secured  in  1621,  but  their  rights  to  the  soil  were  not 
made  secure  until  a  patent  issued  in  1630. 

The  communal  system  proved  as  great  a  failure  in  Plymouth  as 
it  had  done  in  Virginia.  In  1623  it  was  partially  abandoned,  each 
family  being  given  one  acre  of  ground.  Plenty  followed,  as  it  had 
in  Virginia.  In  1627  further  increase  in  private  ownership  was 
allowed.  Each  household  was  then  given  twenty  acres  as  a  private 
holding.  Thus  the  communal  system  was  finally  abandoned,  al- 
though the  system  of  "  commons  "  and  of  pasture  and  wood  rights 
on  the  land  of  the  community  remained  in  places  almost  to  the 
present  day.4  About  the  same  time  that  the  communal  system  was 
given  up,  the  colonists  purchased  the  shares  held  by  the  London 
merchants,  and  thus  obtained  complete  control  of  their  affairs. 

At  first  Plymouth  was  in  government  a  pure  democracy,  where 
all  the  freemen  (those  who  had  signed  the  compact  or  who  had 
been  made  freemen  by  the  governing  body)  met  in  primary  assem- 
bly; but  as  the  colony  expanded  it  became  more  and  more  incon- 
venient for  all  the  freemen  to  assemble  in  one  body,  and  the  repre- 
sentative system  was  introduced.  The  General  Court,  as  the  body 
of  representatives  was  called,  was  not,  however,  given  law-making 
powers,  and  for  several  years  longer  the  primary  assembly  could 
still  meet  and  undo  the  work  of  the  deputies.  Though  the  Pilgrims 
enjoyed  these  privileges  of  government,  they  never  felt  secure  in 
them  because  they  were  not  a  vested  right.  They  had  them  simply 
through  neglect.  This  feeling  of  insecurity  caused  them  to  try 
several  times  to  secure  a  charter  from  the  king,  but  never  with 
success.  Finally  their  separate  existence  was  lost  by  the  incor- 
poration of  the  colony  with  that  of  Massachusetts  in  1691.5 

II 

MASSACHUSETTS  BAY 

Before  the  coming  of  the  Pilgrims  the  Plymouth  Company 
had  made  several  efforts  at  colonization,  all  of  them  unsuccessful. 

4  Channing,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xi. 
8  See    Dexter,    "  The    Pilgrim    Church   and    Plymouth    Colony,"    in    Winsor, 
"  Nar.  and  Crit.  History,"  vol.  iii.  ch.  viii. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  87 

1628-1630 

Captain  John  Smith,  in  1 6 14-16 15,  explored  the  coast  of  North 
Virginia,  as  this  company's  territory  was  called,  made  a  map  of 
it,  and  changed  the  name  to  New  England.  He  also  wrote  pamph- 
lets setting  forth  the  attractions  of  New  England  for  colonists. 
The  fishing  industry  there,  he  declared,  was  more  profitable  than 
the  Spanish  mines.  Upon  the  reorganization  of  the  company  in 
1620,  as  the  Council  for  New  England,  a  new  charter  was  secured 
and  also  a  new  grant,  this  time  to  the  lands  lying  between  the  for- 
tieth and  the  forty-eighth  degree  north  latitude. 

The  failure  of  the  efforts  at  colonization  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  due  to  any  lack  of  liberality  on  the  part  of  the  company 
with  its  lands.  Indeed,  it  granted  them  away  in  a  kingly  fashion, 
having  little  regard  to-day  for  the  rights  granted  yesterday.  The 
conflicting  claims  thus  created  were  a  source  of  vexation  for  many 
years.  Perhaps  the  most  important  of  these  grants  was  one  made 
in  1628.  It  comprised  the  strip  of  territory  between  the  Merrimac 
and  the  Charles  Rivers,  with  three  miles  on  the  farther  side  of  each, 
and  extended  westward  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  It  was  made  to  a 
company  composed  of  John  Endicott  and  five  associates.  In  Sep- 
tember of  that  year  Endicott  came  over  with  a  company  of  sixty  and 
joined  the  settlers  who  had  come  out  to  Gloucester  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  Dorchester  Company,  and  had  later  removed  to  Naum- 
keag,  afterwards  Salem.  Such  was  the  prelude  to  the  great  Puri- 
tan exodus.  The  following  year,  March,  1629,  a  royal  charter 
was  secured  from  Charles  I.  for  a  legal  corporation  styled  the  Gov- 
ernor and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England. 

The  membership  of  the  company  was  now  enlarged.  The 
charter  provided  that  it  should  be  directed  by  a  governor,  deputy 
governor,  and  eighteen  assistants  chosen  by  the  freemen,  that  is, 
the  members  of  the  company.  The  patentees  strenuously  resisted 
the  efforts  of  the  advisers  of  the  Crown  to  have  the  government 
of  the  company  fixed  in  England.  This  omission  really  was  as 
important  as  anything  which  the  charter  contained,  for  it  made 
possible  the  removal  of  the  corporation,  together  with  its  charter, 
to  Massachusetts.6  This  was  done  in  1630,  when  the  corporation 
and  colony  were  merged  into  one  self-governing  body.  And  this 
was  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  the  corporate  colony,  the 
thing  which  contrasts  it  most  sharply  with  the  provincial  colonies 
south  of  the  Hudson. 

c  Doyle,  "  English  Colonies  in  America,"  vol.  i.  p.  90. 


88  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1630-1644 

The  reasons  for  the  formation  of  the  Company  and  for  the 
transfer  of  its  charter  to  the  New  World  are  to  be  found  in  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  England.  The  Petition  of  Right,  the  closing 
of  Parliament  in  1629,  and  the  imprisonment  of  John  Eliot  had 
given  the  opponents  of  the  government  fair  warning  that  they  could 
expect  no  half-way  measures.  Ecclesiastical  affairs  took  on  an 
ominous  aspect.  William  Laud  was  the  practical  ruler  of  the  Es- 
tablished Church.  He  set  about  securing  conformity  with  a  thor- 
oughness that  meant  ruin  to  all  non-conformists.  The  Puritan 
element  had  fallen  upon  evil  days  in  both  church  and  state.  The 
wiser  heads  turned  naturally  to  America  as  a  safe  retreat  until  the 
storm  should  blow  over.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that 
the  project  of  a  trading  charter  was  conceived  and  carried  out.7 

The  situation  was  becoming  more  and  more  unbearable  to  the 
Puritan  party  in  England,  whether  Separatists  or  not;  and  in  1630 
a  number  of  them  made  the  transfer  of  the  charter  the  condition 
of  their  crossing  the  Atlantic.  The  great  exodus  had  begun. 
Eleven  ships  with  more  than  a  thousand  passengers  made  the  voy- 
age. With  them  came  their  new  governor,  John  Winthrop,  and 
the  deputy  governor,  Thomas  Dudley.  Winthrop  decided  that 
Salem  was  not  a  suitable  location,  and  so  removed  to  Boston  Har- 
bor as  the  most  satisfactory  site.  Many  of  those  who  came  were 
men  of  education,  some  had  held  high  stations  at  home,  membership 
in  Parliament  or  preferment  in  the  Church  of  England,  while  all 
were  "  wise  in  their  day  and  generation."  The  original  patent  was 
to  a  trading  company.  Some  disavowed  any  project  to  establish 
a  community  of  Separatists,  nor  for  a  time  did  they  want  their 
independence  at  Salem;  but  at  the  very  first  they  were  bold  enough 
to  reject  the  Anglican  ritual  and  shipped  off  to  England  John  and 
Samuel  Browne  for  no  other  offense  than  using  it.  Their  churches 
were  organized  on  what  is  known  to-day  as  the  congregational 
plan. 

The  government  of  the  colony  was  not  a  real  theocracy,  as  it 
is  sometimes  called ;  neither  was  it  a  pure  democracy ;  it  was  a  mix- 
ture of  the  two.  Mention  has  been  made  of  the  fusing  of  the  cor- 
poration and  the  colony.  This  fusion  was  not  complete  for  many 
years,  for  no  one  could  become  a  free  man  who  could  not  stand 
the  religious  test.  But  within  the  corporation  the  government  was 
democratic,  though  Winthrop  and  the  assistants  endeavored  to 
7  Charming,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  323. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  89 

1631-1644 

make  it  oligarchic.  The  first  rebuke  to  this  spirit  came  in  a  dis- 
pute over  taxation,  when  the  freemen  resumed  the  right  to  impose 
taxes  and  sent  representatives  or  deputies  to  advise  the  governor 
and  assistants  in  such  matters.  All  these  together  made  up  the 
General  Court,  which  exercised  both  legislative  and  judicial  pow- 
ers, but  the  freemen  still  met  to  elect  the  governor  and  assistants. 
In  1644  a  trivial  lawsuit  over 'a  lost  pig  led  to  the  establishment 
of  a  bicameral  legislature.  The  Bible  and  the  common  law  of 
England  were  the  law  of  the  land  until  1641,  when  the  "  Body 
of  Liberties  "  was  adopted.  The  main  object  of  this  instrument 
was  to  limit  the  discretionary  power  of  the  executive. 

When  religious  disputes  were  the  chief  concern  of  men  it 
would  not  have  been  reasonable  to  expect  a  colony  with  a  dis- 
tinctly religious  aim  to  be  free  from  troubles  of  that  nature.  The 
expulsion  of  the  Episcopalian  Browne  has  already  been  mentioned, 
and  scarcely  was  the  colony  freed  from  the  danger  of  prelacy  when 
another  disturbing  factor  arose  in  the  person  of  Roger  Williams, 
who  landed  at  Boston  in  1631,  went  to  Plymouth,  and  came  to 
Salem  in  1633.  The  freemen  had  provided  for  an  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  colony,  but  Williams  refused  to  take  this  and  de- 
nied the  right  of  the  government  to  require  it.  He  declared  for 
the  separation  of  church  and  state  and  for  voluntary  attendance 
at  services  and  voluntary  contributions  for  the  support  of  the 
church.  More  than  this,  he  pronounced  the  king's  patent  void  and 
declared  that  valid  patents  could  be  secured  only  from  the  Indians, 
who  were  the  rightful  owners  of  the  soil.  Much  of  this  sounds 
very  modern,  and  his  theories  in  regard  to  the  church  have  been 
adopted  in  every  American  commonwealth.  But  Williams  was  not 
only  far  in  advance  of  the  time,  but  was  also  an  impractical  ex- 
tremist. His  preaching  was  nothing  short  of  an  attack  upon  the 
state,  and  there  was  nothing  to  do  but  deal  with  him  as  a  public 
enemy.  Salem  sided  with  her  pastor  for  a  while,  but  was  brought 
to  terms  by  being  disfranchised.  Williams  would  neither  amend 
his  preaching  nor  keep  silence,  and  was  finally  banished  (1635). 
On  account  of  his  illness  the  decree  was  not  carried  out  for  some 
months;  but  as  Williams  could  not  keep  still  it  was  finally  decided 
to  ship  him  back  to  England.  To  avoid  this  fate  he  fled  from  the 
colony  in  the  dead  of  winter  (1636).8 

Another  religious  disturber  was  Mrs.  Anne  Hutchinson,  who 
s  Bancroft,   "  History  of  the  United  States,"   vol.   i.  p.   3~8. 


90  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1634-1656 

landed  at  Boston  in  1634.  She  appears  to  have  had  a  fondness 
for  notoriety  and  did  not  like  to  be  excluded  from  the  meeting 
where  the  men  came  together  to  discuss  theological  and  political 
questions.  As  a  counter  movement  she  held  meetings  for  the 
women,  where  similar  questions  were  discussed.  Soon  it  was  dis- 
covered that  her  teachings  were  heretical,  and  that  she  was  gaining 
a  following  among  men  of  consequence.  The  heresy  consisted  in 
her  declaration  that  she  and  her  followers  were  under  a  "  covenant 
of  grace,"  while  the  others  were  under  a  "  covenant  of  works." 
Among  her  followers  were  her  brother,  the  Rev.  John  Wheel  right, 
the  Rev.  John  Cotton,  and  the  young  governor,  Henry  Vane.  The 
Boston  church,  indeed  all  Massachusetts  society,  was  shaken  to  its 
very  foundations  by  the  agitation  of  this  question  of  "  grace  "  and 
"  works."  In  September,  1637,  a  synod  of  divines  drew  up  and 
condemned  ninety-one  erroneous  opinions  said  to  have  been  held 
by  members  of  the  community.  The  heretics  were  asked  to  sub- 
scribe to  this  condemnation,  but  refused.  Wheelright  was  ban- 
ished, while  others  were  fined  or  disfranchised.  Mrs.  Hutchinson 
was  then  brought  to  trial,  if  such  a  travesty  on  justice  may  be 
dignified  by  the  name  of  trial.  The  witnesses  against  her  were 
not  sworn ;  she  was  not  allowed  an  attorney ;  and  she  and  her  wit- 
nesses were  browbeaten  with  shameless  disregard  of  justice.  But 
in  some  inexplicable  way,  dim  now,  but  clear  and  real  then,  her 
teachings  were  believed  to  endanger  the  theocratic  state,  and  she 
was  found  guilty.  Banishment  was  the  penalty  (1637),  and  she 
fled  to  Rhode  Island,  and  later  went  to  New  York,  where  she  was 
murdered  by  the  Indians  four  years  afterwards.  This  the  divines 
considered  God's  vindication  of  their  judgment. 

Comparative  religious  quiet  now  appears  to  have  reigned  for 
a  number  of  years,  only  to  be  broken  by  what  is  commonly  regarded 
as  the  most  inoffensive  of  all  sects,  the  Quakers.  At  that  time, 
however,  a  few  of  them  practiced  certain  fanatical  customs  which 
would  not  be  tolerated  in  any  civilized  community  to-day,  such  as 
walking  through  the  streets  and  entering  the  churches  naked.  Per- 
secution in  England  drove  some  of  them  to  Massachusetts  in  1656. 
When  they  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  they  were  sus- 
jected  of  being  Jesuits  in  disguise.  They  were  banished,  and  the 
penalty  of  death  was  imposed  upon  any  who  returned.  To  the 
surprise  of  the  authorities  some  returned  and  demanded  the  repeal 
of  the  law.     Four  were  hanged,  but  the  law  had  to  be  repealed  in 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  91 

1633-1776 

response  to  public  opinion.  In  the  seventeenth  century  belief  in 
witchcraft  was  common  throughout  the  world.  The  "  Body  of 
Liberties  "  made  it  a  capital  offense  for  one  to  be  a  witch.  In  the 
last  decade  of  the  century  this  law  was  invoked  against  many  sus- 
pected persons,  and  nineteen  actually  paid  the  penalty  on  the  gal- 
lows. Because  this  delusion  as  to  witches  centered  around  Salem, 
this  is  popularly  known  as  the  Salem  Witchcraft. 

In  the  midst  of  the  religious  persecution  one  beam  of  light 
breaks  out  which  is  still  growing  brighter  with  every  passing  day. 
The  year  following  the  banishment  of  Roger  Williams,  and  the  year 
preceding  that  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson,  witnessed  the  birth  of  Harvard 
College.  This  was  founded  by  the  Commonwealth  at  Newtowne. 
The  latter  name  was  soon  changed  to  Cambridge  in  honor  of  the 
Alma  Mater  of  most  of  the  college  men  of  the  community.  Two 
years  later  John  Harvard,  a  young  clergyman,  died,  leaving  his 
library  and  an  estate  valued  at  £800  to  the  college.  The  new  in- 
stitution was  named  Harvard  in  grateful  recognition  of  its  first 
great  benefactor. 

Ill 

CONNECTICUT   AND   RHODE   ISLAND 

The  settlement  of  Connecticut,  in  being  an  offshoot  of  other 
colonies,  marks  a  new  stage  in  colonial  development.  The  Dutch 
at  New  York  had  looked  upon  the  fertile  Connecticut  Valley  and 
saw  that  it  was  good,  especially  for  trading.  With  unusual  mag- 
nanimity they  reported  this  to  the  settlers  at  Plymouth,  who  imme- 
diately made  a  treaty  with  the  Mohicans  and  established  a  trading 
post  at  Windsor  (1633)  to  check  the  Dutch,  who  had  settled  at 
Hartford.  Certain  men  of  Massachusetts,  who  also  desired  this 
goodly  country,  came  into  the  valley  and,  with  a  shameless  disre- 
gard of  the  rights  of  the  Plymouth  squatters,  took  possession  of  the 
"  Lord's  waste  "  on  which  they  had  already  settled.  This  migra- 
tion was  at  first  opposed  by  Massachusetts,  but  in  1635  the  legis- 
lature gave  its  formal  sanction,  furnished  the  settlers  with  a  com- 
mission, with  ammunition  and  cannon,  and  provided  that  they 
should  be  subject  to  its  jurisdiction. 

This  new  exodus  was  led  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker.  This 
divine  appears  to  have  been  the  rival  of  the  Rev.  John  Cotton,  but 
was  of  a  less  aggressive  disposition  and  wished  to  seek  a  new  field, 


92  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1635-1643 

where  his  light  would  be  more  conspicuous.  He  was  also  opposed 
to  the  close  connection  between  church  and  state  which  obtained  in 
Massachusetts.  He  was  democratic  in  his  ideas  and  wished  a 
wider  franchise  than  one  based  on  church  membership.  A  third 
consideration  probably  had  more  weight  with  the  ordinary  emi- 
grants. The  settlers  were  in  search  of  more  fertile  soil,  and  public 
policy  demanded  the  checking  of  the  Dutch.  Before  the  end  of 
1636  about  eight  hundred  people  had  settled  in  the  valley  in  the 
three  towns  of  Hartford,  Windsor,  and  Wethersfield.  The  es- 
tablishment of  Saybrook  (1635),  at  the  mouth  of  the  river,  by 
John  Winthrop,  Jr.,  son  of  the  governor  of  Massachusetts,  served 
to  protect  them  from  the  Dutch.  This  was  done  under  the  author- 
ity of  Lord  Brooke  and  Lord  Saye  and  Sele,  to  whom,  with  ten 
others,  that  part  of  the  country  had  been  granted  by  the  Council 
for  New  England.9 

Much  has  been  made  of  the  Fundamental  Orders  under  which 
the  colonists  governed  themselves.  Fiske  calls  it  "  the  first  writ- 
ten constitution  known  to  history  that  created  a  government  " ; 
but  it  was  too  closely  modeled  on  that  of  Massachusetts  to  deserve 
any  extended  analysis.  One  important  difference  was  that  there 
was  no  religious  test  for  citizenship.  Neither  was  there  any  men- 
tion of  allegiance  to  the  British  King,  though  there  probably  was 
no  intention  to  deny  it. 

New  Haven  was  founded  as  a  separate  colony  in  1638,  by 
Theophilus  Eaton  and  the  Rev.  John  Davenport.10  This  colony 
is  noteworthy  for  the  thorough-going  way  in  which  it  carried  out 
the  ideas  on  which  the  others  had  been  founded,  but  from  which 
they  deviated  as  political  expediency  dictated.  For  a  year  their 
only  constitution  was  a  simple  agreement  to  obey  the  Scriptures. 
In  June,  1639,  they  adopted  a  constitution  closely  modeled  upon 
the  Bible,  and  agreed  among  themselves  that  "  the  word  of  God 
shall  be  the  only  rule  attended  unto  in  ordering  the  affairs  of 
government."  It  was  another  of  those  governments  founded  on 
the  closest  union  between  church  and  state.  Other  towns  sprang 
up  about  New  Haven,  and  maintained  an  independent  existence 
until  1643,  when  they  united  with  it  under  the  title  of  the  New 
Haven  Colony.  They  were  troubled  by  the  Dutch,  but  managed 
to  maintain  their  position  against  all  encroachments. 

9Channing,  "History  of  the  United  States."  vol.  i.  pp.  398-401. 
10  Eggleston.  "  Beginners  of  a  Nation,"  p.  343. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  93 

1643-1692 

The  very  life  of  Connecticut  was  threatened  in  1636-1637 
by  the  Pequot  Indians.  The  war  concerned  all  the  colonies,  but 
the  brunt  of  it  was  borne  by  Connecticut.  While  Massachusetts 
and  Plymouth  were  disputing  about  what  each  should  do,  John 
Mason,  an  intrepid  soldier  who  had  served  in  the  Netherlands,  or- 
ganized a  company  and  marched  against  the  enemy.  Reinforce- 
ments arrived  from  outside  in  time  to  take  part  in  the  annihilation 
of  the  power  of  the  Pequots  by  the  destruction  of  their  last 
stronghold. 

Until  after  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  the  people  of  Con- 
necticut, excepting  the  military  station  at  Saybrook,  were  mere 
squatters,  with  no  title  to  the  land  except  such  as  had  been  secured 
in  some  cases  from  the  Indians.  When  the  news  of  the  Restora- 
tion was  received,  Connecticut  proclaimed  the  new  king  and  sent 
over  the  courtly  Winthrop  as  its  agent.  With  the  help  of  Lord 
Saye  and  Sele,  now  a  member  of  the  king's  council,  he  secured  a 
very  liberal  charter  (1662).  The  colonists  were  made  a  self-gov- 
erning corporation  and  were  practically  independent  in  everything 
but  name.  Not  even  their  laws  had  to  be  sent  over  for  the  in- 
spection of  the  king.11  New  Haven,  to  her  intense  disgust,  found 
that  she  was  included  in  this  charter.  For  a  time  she  resisted 
incorporation,  but  finally  yielded  when  threatened  with  absorption 
by  New  York.  With  the  exception  of  the  reign  of  Andros,  Con- 
necticut retained  her  full  independence.  One  other  attempt,  how- 
ever, was  made  to  bring  her  into  partial  subjection  to  New  York. 
During  the  first  of  the  Inter-Colonial  Wars,  Fletcher  was  made 
commander  of  the  Connecticut  and  New  Jersey  militia.  William 
III.  did  this  to  secure  some  sort  of  military  unity  in  the  war 
against  the  French.  Fletcher  visited  Hartford  in  October,  1693. 
and  attempted  to  carry  out  his  commission.  The  Assembly  of 
Connecticut  refused  to  recognize  his  authority.  It  is  very  doubt- 
ful whether  his  little  episode  with  Captain  Wadsworth,  in  which 
his  attempt  to  read  his  commission  was  drowned  by  the  beating  of 
drums,  and  the  doughty  captain  threatened  "  to  make  the  sun  shine 
through  "  him,  ever  occurred.  But  it  is  evident  from  his  own 
statement  that  he  met  with  a  decided  rebuff.12 

The  history  of  the  early  years  of  Rhode  Island  reads  like 

11  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  54~55- 

12  Fiske,  "  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  218-219. 


94  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1636-1776 

the  story  of  a  mild  form  of  anarchy.13     Like  Connecticut,  this 
colony  was  an  offshoot  of  Massachusetts,  but  one  of  which  the 
parent  colony  was  not  very  proud.     When  Roger  Williams  fled 
from  her  borders,  he  turned  southward  to  Narragansett  Bay,  where 
he  and  five  associates  founded  the  town  of  Providence  on  a  tract 
of  land  secured  from  Canonicus  and  Miantonomi.     In  1637  some 
of  Mrs.   Hutchinson's  followers,  among  them  William  Codding- 
ton  and  John  Clarke,  found  life  in  Massachusetts  uncomfortable 
and  sought  a  cooler  climate  in  Maine,  but  one  winter  there  sat- 
isfied them.     Turning  south  they  settled   on  Aquidneck    (Rhode 
Island),  where  Mrs.  Hutchinson  soon  joined  them.14     Coddington 
presently  fell  out  with  Mrs.  Hutchinson  and  gracefully  withdrew 
from   Portsmouth  and  founded  Newport   ( 1 639 ) ,  but  the  towns 
were  reunited  the  following  year.     The  machinery  of  government 
was  set  in  motion  by  thirteen  in  Providence  and  by  about  twenty 
on   Aquidneck.     Through   the   exertions   of   Williams   the   settle- 
ments, together  with  the  new  town  of  Warwick,  were  united  in 
1643   as  the  Providence   Plantations,  and  a  charter  was   secured 
from   the    Parliamentary    Committee   on   the    Colonies.     In    1663 
John  Clarke,  the  agent  for  Rhode  Island,  secured  another  charter 
from   Charles  II.     This  charter  was  so  liberal  that  it  was  used 
as    the    constitution    of    government    until    1842.     A  method    of 
legislation,  seldom  found  now  outside  of  Switzerland,  was  intro- 
duced here  in  1647,  the  referendum,  by  which  any  one  town  could 
defeat  an  objectionable  measure. 

From  the  first  Rhode  Island  was  a  country  of  "  soul  liberty." 
The  right  of  freedom  in  doctrinal  belief  was  assured  by  statutes 
in  1 641,  and  was  included  in  the  charter  of  i663,  though  subse- 
quently Roman  Catholics  were  denied  the  right  of  franchise.  As 
a  consequence  the  colony  became  a  sort  of  haven  of  refuge  for  all 
sorts  of  heretics  who  had  found  other  places,  especially  Massa- 
chusetts, uncomfortable.  The  result  of  the  mixture  of  such  hetero- 
geneous elements  was  that  Rhode  Island  itself  became  uncom- 
fortable to  all  except  those  who  delighted  in  turmoil  and  turbulence. 
But  democracy  was  in  training,  and  there  were  no  very  serious 
results. 

13  See    Richman,    "  Rhode    Island,    Its    Making   and    Its    Meaning,"    vol.    ii. 
chs.  i.-iii. 

14  Eggleston,  "  Beginners  of  a  Nation,"  p.  340. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  95 

1622-1691 


IV 

NEW     HAMPSHIRE    AND    MAINE 

Two  of  the  New  England  colonies,  New  Hampshire  and 
Maine,  were  not  unlike  the  southern  colonies  in  origin.  Sir  Ferdi- 
nando  Gorges,  one  of  the  chief  moving  spirits  in  the  Council  for 
New  England,  succeeded  in  1622,  with  John  Mason  (not  the  con- 
queror of  the  Pequots),  in  obtaining  a  patent  to  the  country  be- 
tween the  Merrimac  and  the  Kennebec  rivers.  Later  (1629)  this 
territory  was  divided  between  them,  Mason  taking  that  lying  be- 
between  the  Merrimac  and  Piscataqua,  Gorges  that  between  the 
Piscataqua  and  Kenebec.15 

The  first  settlement  in  New  Hampshire  appears  to  have  been 
made  by  David  Thompson  and  a  few  associates  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Piscataqua  in  1623.  Dover  was  founded  by  some  Puritan 
fish-mongers  from  London,  Exeter  and  Hampton  by  Antinomians 
(adherents  of  Mrs.  Hutchinson)  from  Massachusetts.  By  this 
time  Mason  began  to  take  an  interest  in  his  territory,  though  he 
does  not  appear  ever  to  have  secured  a  patent  as  proprietary  gov- 
ernor. In  1629  he  and  Gorges  formed  the  Laconia  Company, 
which  sent  out  a  few  colonists  the  next  year  and  founded  Ports- 
mouth. They  were  Anglicans,  and  it  may  be  readily  inferred  that 
these  settlements  of  Puritans,  Antinomians  and  Anglicans  had  lit- 
tle in  common.  They  quarreled  among  themselves  and  invited 
the  interference  of  Massachusetts,  who  was  watching  for  an  op- 
portunity to  make  good  her  claims  to  jurisdiction  over  them.  This 
she  did  in  1641,  in  a  comparatively  liberal  way,  giving  the  towns 
the  right  of  representation.  In  1691  New  Hampshire  was  sepa- 
rated from  Massachusetts  and  became  a  royal  province.  For  a 
hundred  years  the  progress  of  the  colony  was  retarded  by  the 
insecurity  of  land  titles.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Mason 
heirs  constantly  asserted  their  claims  to  the  land.  Finally  this 
source  of  vexation  was  removed  by  the  purchase  of  the  Mason 
claims.  Vermont  was  an  offshoot  of  this  colony.  For  many 
years  it  was  a  bone  of  contention  between  New  Hampshire  and 
New  York,  but  finally  the  king  decided  in  favor  of  the  latter.     The 

15  Bancroft,  ''History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  114;  Thvvaites,  "The 
Colonies,"  p,  150- 


96  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1639-1776 

attempt,  however,  to  disregard  the  land  titles  based  on  the  New 
Hampshire  grants  led  to  the  revolt  of  the  Green  Mountain  boys  and 
the  formation  of  a  new  commonwealth. 

Gorges  was  not  content  with  a  simple  patent  to  the  land,  but 
secured  a  charter  from  the  king  in  1639,  which  made  him  a  pala- 
tine. He  drafted  a  very  cumbersome  form  of  government,  which 
reminds  one  of  Locke's  Constitution,  but  was  never  able  to  put  it 
in  operation,  because  there  were  hardly  more  than  enough  set- 
tlers in  Maine  to  hold  the  numerous  offices.  Gorges  gave  much 
time,  thought,  and  money  to  his  colony,  but  never  lived  to  see  any 
great  returns.  After  his  death  the  colonists  wrote  to  his  heirs  re- 
peatedly, but  could  get  no  reply.  Massachusetts  then  discovered 
that  the  country  belonged  to  her,  and  proceeded  to  absorb  it  (1652- 
1656).  In  1677  the  heirs  of  Gorges  made  a  virtue  of  necessity, 
and  sold  out  their  claims  to  Massachusetts. 


THE    NEW    ENGLAND    CONFEDERATION 

The  formation  of  the  New  England  Confederation  in  1643 
gives  a  sort  of  unity  to  the  history  of  this  region  for  a  time.  Con- 
necticut had  made  overtures  for  such  a  union  as  early  as  1637. 
Only  four  of  the  colonies  were  included,  Connecticut,  New  Haven, 
Plymouth  and  Massachusetts,  and  they  agreed  upon  twelve  arti- 
cles for  a  "  firm  and  perpetual  league  of  friendship  and  amity  for 
offense,  mutual  advice  and  succor."  Rhode  Island  was  not 
deemed  worthy  to  be  a  member  and  therefore  was  not  invited 
to  join.  Eight  federal  commissioners,  two  from  each  colony,  re- 
gardless of  population,  were  empowered  to  "  determine  all  affairs 
of  war  or  peace,  leagues,  aids,  charges  and  numbers  of  men  for 
war,  division  of  spoils  and  whatsoever  was  gotten  by  conquest." 
The  spoils  as  well  as  the  expenses  of  war  were  to  be  divided 
according  to  the  military  population.  One  article  provided  for 
the  rendition  of  fugitives  from  justice  and  runaway  slaves. 
Within  its  own  limits  each  colony  was  to  preserve  its  own  "  pe- 
culiar jurisdiction  and  government  "  free  from  any  intermeddling 
by  the  Confederation.  The  commissioners  were  to  meet  in  the 
various  colonies  in  rotation.  A  three-fourths  vote  (the  vote  being 
by  individuals,  not  by  colonies)  was  necessary  for  any  measure; 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  97 

1643 -1674 

failing  in  this  it  was  to  be  referred  to  the  legislature  of  the  different 
members  of  the  Confederation. 

Although  the  population  of  Massachusetts  was  greater  than 
that  of  all  the  other  members  combined,  she  stood  on  an  equality 
with  each  of  them  in  the  federal  council.  Her  only  remedy  lay 
in  assuming  a  domineering  attitude,  or  in  actually  violating  the 
terms  of  the  compact,  which  she  sometimes  did.  However,  the 
Confederation  served  a  useful  purpose,  especially  in  dealing  with 
the  Indians.  It  declined  after  the  Restoration  and  was  finally  dis- 
solved in  1684.16 

As  in  the  south,  so  in  New  England,  the  colonists  desired 
to  convert  the  heathen  Indian.  The  most  famous  of  all  the  work- 
ers among  the  red  men  was  the  Rev.  John  Eliot,  who  was  known 
as  the  Apostle  to  the  Indians.  He  labored  among  them  many 
years  and  translated  the  Bible  into  the  Algonquin  language. 
Those  who  accepted  his  teachings  were  known  as  "  praying  In- 
dians," and  a  goodly  number  were  gathered  into  the  fold.  But 
the  great  majority  were  true  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  and 
the  chief  of  the  Pokanokets  even  tried  to  insert  in  a  treaty  a  stipu- 
lation that  no  effort  should  be  made  to  convert  any  of  his  war- 
riors. With  jealous  eye  the  Indian  saw  his  hunting  grounds 
vanishing  with  each  advance  of  the  English,  and  the  number  of 
warriors  diminished  by  the  increase  of  "  praying  Indians." 
He  could  draw  but  little  distinction  between  the  cheating  trader 
and  the  pious  missionary,  and  he  hated  all.  He  knew  but  little 
of  the  sacred  nature  of  treaties,  such  as  the  English  made  with 
him,  and  frequently  broke  them.  The  summons  to  the  settle- 
ment to  answer  for  this,  as  also  to  be  arraigned  before  a  jury  of 
white  men  for  some  offense,  humiliated  his  pride  and  excited  his 
wrath.  At  last  the  smoldering  fires  of  hostility  were  fanned  into 
a  flame  by  Philip,  son  of  and  successor  to  Massasoit.  There  is  no 
evidence  of  a  widespread  conspiracy,  but  Philip  was  under  sus- 
picion in  1674,  and  was  summoned  to  an  examination.  The  in- 
former against  him  was  murdered,  the  murderers  were  tried  by 
jury  and  hanged,  and  the  war  at  once  broke  out. 

Philip  succeeded  in  winning  over  the  powerful  Narragansetts, 
and  soon  all   New  England  was  ablaze.     Several  towns,  among 
them  Brookfield,  Deerfield  and  Northfield,  were  burned.     An  at- 
tack  on  Hadley,  according  to  tradition,   was  repelled  under  the 
16  Frothingham,  "  Rise  of  the  Republic,"  ch.  ii. 


98 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1674-1676 


leadership  of  an  aged  man  commonly  believed  to  have  been  Goffe, 
one  of  the  regicides  who  had  found  a  refuge  in  America.  During 
the  winter  of  1 675-1 676  the  war  was  prosecuted  with  vigor  by 
the  whites.     The  Indians  were  unused  to  continuous  fighting  and 


were  gradually  exhausted.  Philip's  allies  sued  for  grace  and  Philip 
himself  became  a  fugitive,  only  to  be  overtaken  by  Captain  Church 
in  a  swamp,  where  he  was  slain  by  one  of  his  own  race.  The  loss 
in  blood  and  treasure  was  very  great.  More  than  600  men  fell  in 
the  struggle  and  almost  as  many  houses,  including  thirteen  towns, 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  99 

1676-1686 

went  up  in  smoke.  Bancroft  estimates  the  disbursements  and 
losses  at  half  a  million  dollars.17 

The  Restoration  in  England  marked  a  turn  in  the  tide  of  af- 
fairs in  the  Confederation.  We  have  already  seen  that  one  of  the 
members,  New  Haven,  was  absorbed  by  Connecticut  in  her  new 
charter.  Rhode  Island,  too,  despised  and  rejected  of  the  Con- 
federation because  of  her  heterodoxy,  received  the  royal  favor, 
much  to  the  disgust  of  Massachusetts,  which  was  ordered  to  ac- 
cord better  treatment  to  the  Quakers,  to  tolerate  the  Anglicans, 
and  to  administer  justice  in  the  name  of  the  king.  Still  another 
factor  contributed  to  the  decline  of  the  Confederation.  The  early 
settlers  were  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  independence. 
They  probably  never  aimed  at  complete  separation  from  the 
mother  country,  but  they  wished  to  have  as  little  to  do  with  her 
as  possible.  But  by  this  time  a  new  generation  had  grown  up,  one 
which  knew  not  the  tyrannies  from  which  their  fathers  had  fled. 
They  were  becoming  tired  of  the  austere  rule  of  the  Puritan  di- 
vines. Men  of  wealth  who  engaged  in  commerce  were  unwilling 
to  offend  across  the  sea  for  fear  of  damaging  trade.  They  also 
knew  something  of  life  in  Old  England  and  strove  to  imitate  it. 

All  these  facts  made  it  possible  for  Edward  Randolph,  who 
came  over  in  1676,  to  look  after  the  enforcement  of  the  Navigation 
Acts,  to  build  up  a  small  following;  but  he  was  bitterly  hated  by 
the  majority  for  his  tyranny  and  for  his  malicious  reports  about 
the  colony. 

Soon  after  the  Restoration  New  England  affairs  were  en- 
trusted to  a  committee  of  twelve  members  of  the  privy  council. 
In  1664  they  sent  over  a  commission,  but  they  were  unable  to  get 
much  satisfaction  out  of  Massachusetts  in  their  efforts  to  have  her 
mend  her  ways.  They  detached  Maine  from  her  the  following 
year,  but  three  years  later  she  quietly  took  it  back,  and  in  1677 
bought  up  the  Gorges  claim  which  Charles  himself  was  intending 
to  buy.  The  Puritans  were  as  skillful  as  the  Spanish  in  evasion 
and  delay,  but  finally  the  blow  fell.  The  insult  in  the  purchase  of 
Maine,  the  constant  evasion  of  the  Navigation  Acts,  the  coining 
of  money,  and  the  disfranchisement  of  Anglicans  were  deemed  a 
sufficient  pretext  for  the  destruction  of  her  liberties,  and  her  char- 
ter was  annulled  in  1684,  by  a  writ  of  quo  warranto.  The  same 
year  witnessed  the  end  of  the  Confederation. 

17  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  92. 


100  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1686-1688 

In  1686  Sir  Edmund  Andros  came  to  Boston  with  a  com- 
mission as  governor  of  New  England,  and  two  years  later  New 
York  and  New  Jersey,  where  he  had  already  made  a  reputation, 
were  added  to  his  jurisdiction.  Some  modern  historians  are  in- 
clined to  think  that  he  was  hardly  as  black  as  he  has  been  painted, 
and  the  colors  used  by  his  contemporary  colonists  were  certainly 
very  dark.  He  was  not  carrying  out  a  policy  of  arbitrary  gov- 
ernment for  the  sake  of  being  despotic.  Conditions  in  the  colonies 
had  occupied  the  serious  attention  of  the  home  government.  The 
evident  solution  of  the  problem  of  administration  was  to  consoli- 
date and  unify  the  various  colonial  governments.  James  II.  de- 
termined to  do  this.  In  order  to  accomplish  such  a  result  it  was 
necessary  to  confiscate  existing  charters  and  abolish  the  independent 
governments  in  the  various  colonies.  In  executing  such  a  policy 
Andros  certainly  could  not  have  won  the  love  and  gratitude  of 
the  colonists  and  at  the  same  time  been  faithful  to  his  instruc- 
tions. He  chose  the  latter  and  governed  despotically.  He  sus- 
pended the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  instituted  a  rigorous  censor- 
ship of  the  press.  He  annulled  land  grants  and  divided  up  the 
common  lands  among  his  friends.  He  abolished  the  General 
Court  and  himself  levied  the  taxes.  And  finally  he  set  up  the 
Anglican  worship,  sometimes  seizing  Congregational  churches  for 
that  purpose.  He  demanded  the  charter  of  Rhode  Island.  This 
was  refused,  but  the  colony  yielded  to  his  sway.  At  Hartford  he 
demanded  the  Charter  of  Connecticut  in  person.  The  story  goes 
that  the  assembly  was  prolonged  far  into  the  night,  when  the  lights 
were  suddenly  put  out  and  the  precious  charter  was  spirited  away 
and  concealed  in  an  oak.  The  Charter  Oak,  as  the  tree  was  ever 
afterwards  known,  was  carefully  preserved  for  a  time,  but  was 
blown  down  in  August,  1856.18 

At  last  relief  came  in  news  from  over  the  sea.  As  soon  as  it 
was  known  that  William  of  Orange  had  landed  in  England,  and 
before  the  result  could  be  ascertained,  the  colonists  imprisoned  An- 
dros and  quietly  shipped  him  back  home.  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island  then  brought  their  old  charters  out  of  hiding  and  went 
on  as  before.  Massachusetts  made  strenuous  efforts  to  get  back 
her  old  rights,  but  there  was  no  way  of  avoiding  the  fact  that 
her  charter  had  been  legally  declared  void.  Increase  Mather  was 
sent  to  England  to  secure  a  restoration  of  the  old  charter,  but 
18  Read  Andrews,  "Self  Government  in  America."  chs.  xvi.-xvii. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  101 

1609-1776 

failed.  William  III.  would  have  preferred  to  see  all  of  New  Eng- 
land united  under  one  strong-  government,  as  he  foresaw  the  com- 
ing struggle  with  the  French.  He  was  compelled,  however,  to 
yield  to  the  dissatisfaction  created  by  the  Andros  regime.  It  was 
intimated  that  a  proposition  for  a  new  charter  would  be  favorably 
received.  This  was  at  once  drawn  up,  probably  under  the  per- 
sonal direction  of  Mather,  and  received  the  royal  assent  in  1691. 
Even  in  this  the  unifying  policy  of  the  British  Government  was 
manifest,  for  the  bounds  of  Massachusetts  were  enlarged  so  as  to 
include  Plymouth,  Maine  and  Nova  Scotia.  Her  legislature  was 
restored,  but  every  law  it  passed  had  to  receive  the  royal  sanction, 
while  the  governor  was  appointed  by  the  Crown.  Congregation- 
alism was  still  the  state  religion,  but  the  absolute  domination  of 
the  Puritan  clergy  was  at  an  end,  for  the  religious  test  for  citizen- 
ship was  now  replaced  by  a  property  qualification.19 

During  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  charters 
were  threatened  several  times,  but  were  never  again  revoked,  and 
the  colonies  continued  their  development  with  only  such  serious 
interruptions  as  the  wars  waged  against  the  French  and  the  In- 
dians, which  were  but  an  echo  of  the  great  contest  in  the  Old 
World.  A  source  of  perennial  dispute  was  the  governor's  salary, 
in  which  the  Crown  tried  to  dictate,  but  finally  had  to  yield,  and  the 
matter  was  left  to  legislative  discretion.  With  the  passing  years 
more  and  more  emigrants,  mostly  English,  came  over,  and  the  set- 
tlements spread  to  the  west.  Connecticut  remained  almost  purely 
an  agricultural  community,  but  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island 
developed  a  large  carrying  trade.  Their  industrial  and  social  life 
will  be  described  in  another  chapter. 

VI 

NEW    YORK 

The  Dutch  were  bold  navigators,  and  after  the  defeat  of  the 
Spanish  Armada  their  rise  was  so  rapid  that  they  soon  rivaled  the 
power  which  had  defeated  their  old-time  enemy.  It  was  an 
Englishman,  Henry  Hudson,  who  in  September,  1609,  while  in 
the  employ  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Company,  sailed  up  the  river 

19  Bancroft,   "History   of  the    United    States,"   vol.   iii.   pp.    78-82;    Greene, 
"  Provincial  America,"  ch.  ii. 


102  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1609-1629 

which  bears  his  name  and  gave  them  a  claim  to  "  as  fair  a  land  as 
ever  was  trodden  by  the  foot  of  man."  The  country  between  the 
Hudson  and  Delaware  Bay,  which  the  navigator  also  entered,  was 
named  New  Netherlands,  but  no  settlements  were  made  in  it  for 
several  years,  except  a  few  trading  posts. 

In  1 62 1  the  Dutch  West  India  Company  was  chartered  by  the 
States  General  and  given  large  commercial  and  political  powers 
in  all  the  Dutch  possessions  between  the  straits  of  Magellan  and 
Newfoundland.20  Three  years  later  they  sent  over  thirty  families 
of  Walloons  (Protestant  refugees),  some  of  whom  settled  on  the 
Delaware  River,  others  on  the  Connecticut,  and  a  few  on  Long 
Island.  Eight  stopped  on  Manhattan,  but  the  greater  part  went 
up  the  Hudson  to  the  present  site  of  Albany,  which  they  called 
Fort  Orange.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  English  claimed 
all  this  country,  and  had  even  granted  it  away  more  than  once. 
However,  they  were  allied  with  the  Dutch  at  this  time  against  their 
common  enemy,  Spain,  and  preferred  their  friendship  to  the  track- 
less forests  which  they  were  occupying. 

Cornelius  May,  whose  name  is  perpetuated  by  a  county  and 
cape  in  New  Jersey,  was  the  first  director  or  governor.  In  1626 
he  was  succeeded  by  Peter  Minuit,  who,  upon  his  arrival,  bought 
the  whole  of  Manhattan  Island  from  the  Indians  for  trinkets 
worth  about  twenty-four  dollars.  He  built  a  fort  on  the  island 
and  called  it  New  Amsterdam.21  But  immigrants  were  few  in 
number,  and  in  1629,  by  the  charter  of  "  privileges  and  exemp- 
tions," an  effort  was  made  to  attract  men  of  wealth  and  station. 
It  was  simply  an  effort  to  establish  the  feudal  system  in  America, 
antedating  that  in  Maryland  by  several  years.  Members  of  the 
company  were  privileged  to  plant  colonies  on  lands  purchased  by 
them  from  the  Indians.  Each  one  who  established  as  many  as 
fifty  persons  over  fifteen  years  of  age  was  given  a  perpetual  grant 
of  a  tract  extending  sixteen  miles  along  the  river  or  eight  miles 
on  each  side,  and  indefinitely  into  the  interior.22  The  tenants 
were  practically  the  serfs  for  ten  years  of  the  patroons,  as  the 
proprietors  were  called,  who  collected  the  rents  and  exercised  feu- 
dal  rights  of  government.     Some  of  these  patroons  became  the 

20  Fiske,  "Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  i.  p.  3. 

21  Bancroft,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  279;  Fiske,  "Dutch 
and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  i.  p.   116. 

2- Fiske,  "Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  i.  p.  154. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  103 

1629-1655 

founders  of  families  still  well  known  in  New  York.  Remnants 
of  the  feudal  system  prevailed  far  into  the  nineteenth  century,  but 
the  attempt  to  collect  rents  long  in  arrears  on  the  great  Van 
Rensselaer  estate  led  to  riots  (1839-1846)  which  finally  caused  the 
State  to  abolish  all  such  rights. 

Still  the  colony  did  not  thrive.  The  patroons  were  great 
landlords  and  their  tenants  were  but  litttle  better  than  serfs. 
Traders  were  not  attracted,  because  the  company  had  a  monopoly 
of  commerce.  As  a  further  inducement  to  settlers,  the  patroon 
system  was  curtailed  and  trade  and  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  were 
opened  to  all.  The  effect  was  not  all  that  could  have  been  de- 
sired. A  few  more  settlers  came  in,  but  the  growth  was  slow, 
for  in  1653  tne  province  numbered  only  about  two  thousand 
souls.  Yet  even  before  this  it  had  attained  a  somewhat  cosmo- 
politan character,  about  eighteen  languages  being  spoken  within  its 
bounds.23 

Minuit  was  succeeded  by  Van  Twiller  in  1632,  who  soon  gave 
place  to  Kieft,  an  autocrat  who  made  things  lively  in  and  about 
the  colony  for  ten  years.  In  response  to  public  opinion  he  was 
forced  to  call  a  council  (1641)  representing  the  different  settle- 
ments, but  he  quarreled  with  this  and  with  a  later  one  (1644),  and 
was  finally  removed  on  petition  of  the  colonists.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Peter  Stuyvesant  (1647),  the  last  and  best  of  the 
Dutch  governors.  Although  he  was  better  than  his  predecessors, 
the  people  were  not  satisfied  and  demanded  still  more  liberties,  for 
the  leaven  of  democracy  was  at  work  here  as  well  as  in  the  English 
colonies.  He  was  forced  to  call  a  council  (the  nine  men),  but  the 
body  was  made  self-perpetuating.  However,  in  a  contest  over 
excise  taxes  (1651)  the  people  won,  and  in  1652  a  measure  of 
municipal  government  was  granted  the  colony.  In  the  matter 
of  religion  Stuyvesant  sought  to  enforce  conformity  to  the  Dutch 
Reformed  Church,  and  persecuted  dissenters  without  mercy 
until  the  pressure  of  public  opinion  forced  him  to  stop.  After  a 
long  dispute  with  New  England  he  agreed  to  give  up  all  claims 
to  the  Connecticut  Valley  and  to  place  the  western  boundary  of 
Connecticut  about  where  it  now  is.  In  1655  he  forced  the  South 
Sea  Company  of  Sweden  to  abandon  its  settlement  on  the  Dela- 
ware, which  had  been  made  under  the  leadership  of  Minuit,  Usse- 
linx  and  Blommaert,  and  annexed  them  to  his  realm. 
23  Read  Schuyler,  "  Colonial  New  York,"  vol.  i. 


104  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1655-1683 

But  the  time  soon  came  for  the  Dutch  to  yield.  For  centuries 
the  English  and  Dutch  had  been  firm  friends;  but  the  rapid  rise 
of  the  Netherlands  as  a  sea  power  after  humbling  Spain  caused 
England  to  become  jealous  of  the  increasing  maritime  supremacy 
of  the  Dutch.  The  policy  of  Charles  II.  was  vacillating;  some- 
times he  was  the  pensioner  of  the  French  king,  sometimes  the  ally 
of  the  Stadtholder.  Pretexts  for  interference  in  America  were 
not  hard  to  find.  There  was  the  constant  friction  between  the 
English  and  Dutch  settlers  and  the  evasion  of  the  Navigation  Acts 
by  the  Dutch.  Then,  too,  the  finest  harbor  on  the  continent  sepa- 
rated the  English  colonies,  a  harbor  which,  with  its  environs,  Eng- 
land now  claimed  by  right  of  discovery.  All  the  country  from  the 
Connecticut  to  the  Delaware  must  be  made  English,  and  in  1664 
Charles  granted  it  to  his  brother,  James,  Duke  of  York. 

Richard  Nicolls  was  sent  over  with  some  of  the  king's  troops 
to  make  good  this  claim.  He  landed  in  Boston,  and  sought  help 
there,  but  obtained  none,  and  turned  to  Connecticut,  who  sent  her 
militia.  When  he  arrived  before  New  Amsterdam  Stuyvesant 
rushed  about  as  fast  as  his  wooden  leg  would  carry  him  and  sum- 
moned the  people  to  defend  the  fort ;  but  they  contrasted  the  liber- 
ties of  the  English  colonists  with  their  own,  and  refused  to  sup- 
port him  loyally,  in  consequence  of  which  he  was  forced  to  sur- 
render.24 He  went  to  Holland,  but  returned  to  the  colony,  where 
he  and  Nicolls  drank  many  a  bumper  of  ale  together.  His  mem- 
ory is  still  preserved  in  the  names  of  certain  localities  in  New 
York  City.25 

At  the  time  of  the  conquest  the  colony  contained  about  ten 
thousand  inhabitants,  of  whom  about  fifteen  hundred  were  on  Man- 
hattan Island.  Nicolls  became  governor  and  at  once  took  up 
the  work  of  Anglicizing  the  colony.  The  name  of  the  province, 
as  also  that  of  the  town  of  Manhattan,  was  charged  to  New 
York,  and  Fort  Orange  became  Albany.  However,  few  immedi- 
ate changes  were  made  in  the  political  system  beyond  the  intro- 
duction of  trial  by  jury,  the  granting  of  equality  in  the  matter 
of  taxation,  and  the  promulgation  of  the  Duke's  Laws.  The 
latter,  drawn  by  Nicolls  and  a  convention  of  the  settlers,  provided 

"Bancroft,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  313;  Fiske,  "Dutch 
and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  i.  p.  299. 

25  Stevens,  "  The  English  in  New  York,"  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist.," 
vol.  iii.  ch.  x. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  105 

16S3-1689 

a  system  of  town  government  whereby  a  constable  and  eight  over- 
seers were  elected  by  the  people  and  vested  with  judicial  and  legis- 
lative power.  Several  towns  were  combined  into  a  "  riding,"  pre- 
sided over  by  a  sheriff.  In  1683  these  ridings  developed  into 
counties ;  afterwards  ( 1 703 )  it  was  arranged  that  supervisors 
should  be  elected  by  each  town.  Thus  the  whole  system  of  local 
government  was  a  sort  of  compromise  between  the  town  system  of 
New  England  and  the  county  system  of  the  south,  and  gave  rise  to 
the  mixed  system  now  prevalent  in  most  of  the  States.  Religious 
liberty  was  guaranteed  to  all. 

Outside  the  towns  the  people  had  no  share  in  their  own  gov- 
ernment, for  the  sheriff  was  appointed  by  the  governor  and  the 
laws  were  made  by  the  duke.  The  English  settlers  clamored  for 
more  liberties.  No  man  can  be  contented  without  security  of  prop- 
erty. The  Dutch  were  vexed  by  an  order  that  all  land  grants 
must  be  confirmed  by  the  new  governor,  for  which  he  was  al- 
lowed to  exact  a  fee.  In  consequence  they  welcomed  the  Dutch 
fleet  when  it  appeared  before  the  city  in  1673,  but  their  joy  was 
shortlived,  for  the  English  were  again  in  possession  the  following 
year.  Edmund  Andros  then  came  out  as  governor.  His  rule  was 
vigorous  and  on  the  whole  wise,  but  the  agitation  for  more  liberties 
was  kept  up.  In  1680  he  was  recalled  and  Thomas  Dongan  sent 
in  his  place.  Three  years  later  Dongan  yielded  to  the  demands 
of  the  people  and  called  an  assembly.  This  body  drew  up  a  char- 
ter of  liberties,  to  which  the  king  gave  his  assent.  This  provided 
that  the  assembly  should  be  coordinate  with  the  governor  and 
council  in  legislation;  that  no  taxes  should  be  levied  without  the 
consent  of  the  assembly;  that  the  franchise  should  be  extended 
to  all  freemen  and  free-holders,  and  that  religious  toleration  should 
be  given  to  all  Christians.26  But  their  liberties  were  not  enjoyed 
long;  James  hated  popular  government  even  more  than  Charles, 
and  when  he  came  to  the  throne  he  abolished  the  charter  of  liber- 
ties (1686),  annexed  New  York  to  New  England,  and  appointed 
Andros  to  govern  the  whole  as  a  royal  province. 

But  relief  soon  came  in  the  enforced  abdication  of  the  king 
and  the  imprisonment  of  Andros  (1688-1689).  Jacob  Leisler,  a 
German  shopkeeper,  headed  the  revolution  in  New  York  and  pro- 
claimed William  and  Mary  as  the  lawful  sovereigns.  He  gov- 
erned the  colony  with  energy,  and  took  active  measures  to  defend 

20  Thwaites,    "  The    Colonies,"   p.    205. 


106  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1689-1701 

it  against  the  French  and  Indians.  At  his  call  the  first  Colonial 
Congress  met  at  Albany  in  1690  to  take  counsel  for  measures 
of  defense  and  offense  against  the  French  and  their  Indian  allies. 
But  Leisler  was  rash,  and  many  of  his  arbitrary  acts  offended  the 
so-called  conservative  element.  This  element  was,  in  the  main,  the 
Andros  party,  and  the  members  were  known  to  be  sympathizers  of 
the  Stuarts. 

In  1 69 1  Colonel  Henry  Sloughter  came  out  as  governor. 
Leisler  was  arrested  on  the  charge  of  treason  and  imprisoned. 
The  anti-Leisler  party  acquired  the  ascendency  with  the  new  gov- 
ernor. Leisler  was  convicted,  and  Sloughter,  while  intoxicated, 
placed  his  signature  to  the  death  warrant.  This  judicial  murder 
of  Leisler  profoundly  affected  New  York  politics.  For  many 
years  the  two  parties  in  the  colony  kept  up  a  bitter  controversy, 
and  each  governor  found  it  necessary  to  ally  himself  with  one  or 
the  other  of  them.27  Sloughter's  successor,  Benjamin  Fletcher, 
was  an  unprincipled  scoundrel  and  caused  the  colony  much  dis- 
tress. It  was  during  his  administration  that  New  York  became 
a  center  for  the  illegal  trade  of  the  pirates  that  infested  the  Indies. 
It  is  not  at  all  certain  that  Fletcher  himself  was  not  personally  in- 
terested in  this  traffic.  Many  efforts  were  made  to  suppress  the 
sea  robbers.  Among  other  schemes,  a  hardy  mariner,  named 
William  Kidd,  was  sent  out  to  prey  upon  them.  But  the  chance 
for  gain  was  too  tempting  for  him  and  his  men.  and  he  turned 
pirate  and  became  the  most  famous  of  them  all.  After  about  two 
and  a  half  years  of  this  life,  Kidd  appeared  on  the  American 
coast  in  1699.  In  the  meantime  Fletcher  had  been  succeeded  by 
Bellomont.  It  had  been  under  the  latter's  advice  that  Kidd  had 
been  sent  out.  Kidd  hoped  to  secure  immunity  through  his  wealth 
and  his  acquaintance  with  Bellomont.  In  this  he  was  mistaken, 
and  in  an  effort  to  convince  Bellomont  of  his  innocence  he  landed 
in  Boston,  was  arrested,  sent  to  England  for  trial,  and  finally  exe- 
cuted. Where  he  disposed  of  his  fabulous  wealth  is  one  of  the  mys- 
teries men  are  still  trying  to  solve.2S 

The  next  governor,  the  Earl  of  Bellomont  ( 1698 -1 701),  was 
perhaps  the  best  the  colony  ever  had.20  He  was  also  the  first  gov- 
ernor sent  out  under  the  new  Board  of  Trade  and  Plantations.     He 

27  Fiske,  "  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonics,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  183-208. 

28  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  226-235. 

29  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  228. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  107 

1701-1776 

allied  himself  with  the  old  Leisler  party  and  managed  to  carry  on 
the  government  in  a  most  vigorous  manner. 

Bellomont  was  succeeded  by  Cornbury,  who  proved  himself 
one  of  the  most  rapacious  governors  that  ever  plundered  the 
colony.  It  was  due  to  his  mismanagement  that  the  assembly  ap- 
pointed a  treasurer  of  its  own  and  took  full  charge  of  expendi- 
tures for  war  purposes  (1706).  The  movement  thus  begun  could 
not  be  stopped.  The  assembly  constantly  enlarged  its  scope  of 
activity.  The  council  was  denied  any  voice  in  the  framing  of 
money  bills,  all  taxes  were  lodged  with  the  treasurer  appointed  by 
the  assembly,  committees  were  appointed  to  carry  out  its  orders, 
and  in  1739  the  assembly  proceeded  to  appropriate  salaries  by  name 
and  for  specific  offices,  so  that  the  governor  and  council  lost  all 
practical  control  over  appointments.  Thus  New  York  furnishes  a 
good  illustration  of  what  was  going  on  in  all  the  colonies  during 
the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century.  In  all  of  them  the  assem- 
blies were  slowly  but  surely  acquiring  practically  all  control  of  gov- 
ernment, executive  as  well  as  legislative. 

A  trial  which  occurred  in  1735  deserves  notice  here,  because 
of  its  bearing  upon  the  history  of  liberty.  Governor  Cosby  brought 
suit  in  the  Supreme  Court  to  secure  a  sum  of  money,  but  the 
case  went  against  him.  Thereupon  he  removed  the  judge  and  ap- 
pointed one  of  his  partisans.  Peter  Zenger,  editor  of  the  New 
York  Weekly  Journal,  then  criticised  the  governor  unmercifully  in 
his  paper.  In  retaliation  the  governor  ordered  the  paper  to  be 
burned  and  prosecuted  Zenger  for  libel,  but  again  lost.  This  was 
an  important  victory  for  the  freedom  of  the  press  which  has  never 
been  forgotten. 

In  spite  of  a  succession  of  bad  governors,  New  York  enjoyed 
a  steady  growth.  Its  cosmopolitan  character  was  maintained  by 
the  arrival  of  immigrants  from  the  various  countries  of  Europe, 
but  the  English  and  Dutch  predominated.  New  York  City  became 
a  center  of  trade,  but  the  commercial  preeminence  which  it  now  en- 
joys was  not  attained  in  Colonial  times. 

VII 

DELAWARE    AND    NEW    JERSEY 

Three  different  nations,  the  Dutch,  the  Swedes  and  the  Eng- 
lish  laid   claim   to   Delaware.     It   also   had   three   different    indi- 


108  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1631-1668 

viduals  as  proprietors.  Lord  Baltimore,  the  Duke  of  York  and 
William  Perm.  The  Dutch  made  the  first  settlement  within  the 
present  bounds  of  the  State  (near  Lewes)  in  1631 ;  but  the  little 
colony  was  destroyed  by  the  Indians.  Next  came  some  English- 
men from  New  Haven,  only  to  be  taken  prisoners  by  the  Dutch. 
The  third  attempt  was  made  by  the  South  Sea  Company  of  Swe- 
den, which  was  chartered  by  the  great  soldier-statesman,  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  in  1624.  In  1638  Peter  Minuit,  whom  we  have  already 
met  as  governor  of  New  Amsterdam,  led  out  the  first  company 
from  Sweden  and  built  Fort  Christina  where  Wilmington  now 
stands.  Governor  Kieft  protested  against  this  invasion  of  Dutch 
territory,  and  no  doubt  his  ire  was  raised  all  the  more  because  it 
was  done  under  the  leadership  of  one  of  his  predecessors.  But 
the  Swedes  paid  no  attention  to  Kieft  except  to  build  another  fort 
to  checkmate  his  rebuilding  of  Fort  Nassau.  Then  came  more 
English  from  New  Haven,  but  the  Dutch  and  Swedes  forgot  their 
own  animosities  long  enough  to  unite  in  driving  out  the  race 
whose  thirst  for  land  was  becoming  as  insatiable  as  that  of  the 
Spanish  for  gold.  New  Sweden,  as  the  colony  was  called,  pros- 
pered for  a  while,  but  as  already  related,  was  captured  by  the 
Dutch  in  1655.30  A  part,  and  later  the  rest  of  it,  was  sold  to  the 
city  of  Amsterdam,  under  whose  government  there  was  a  period  of 
retrogression.  With  the  conquest  of  New  Amsterdam  it  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Duke  of  York,  who  in  turn  sold  it  (1682) 
to  William  Penn  to  give  him  an  outlet  to  the  sea.  Thereafter  it 
was  known  as  the  "  Three  Lower  Counties,"  or  "  Territories  "  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  was  governed  as  a  sort  of  province  of  that 
colony.  It  had  no  separate  governor,  but  secured  a  legislature  of 
its  own  in  1702. 

In  New  Jersey  the  Dutch  built  two  forts,  Fort  Nassau  and 
one  on  the  Hudson;  but  the  history  of  the  colony  really  begins  with 
its  cession  to  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir  George  Carteret  by  the  Duke 
of  York  in  1664.  It  was  named  New  Jersey  for  the  island  of 
Jersey,  which  Carteret  had  governed  and  held  for  Charles  II. 
during  the  Commonwealth.  Colonization  began  the  next  year  with 
the  settlement  of  Elizabethtown.  A  few  Dutch,  Swedes,  and  New 
Englanders  were  already  on  the  ground.  More  came  from  New 
England  and  settled  Middletown  and  Newark.  In  1668  the  first 
assembly  met  at  Elizabethtown.  The  severity  of  its  code  of  laws 
:;"  ['ancrofi,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  207. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  109 

1668-1776. 

—  the  death  penalty  was  attached  to  thirteen  crimes  —  testifies  to 
the  predominance  of  the  Puritan  spirit.  A  period  of  turbulence  be- 
gan with  the  disputes  over  quit-rents  in  1670,  and  Berkeley  finally 
sold  out  his  interest  in  disgust  to  a  party  of  Quakers.  They  in 
turn  soon  sold  out  to  William  Penn. 

The  Dutch  recaptured  New  Jersey  in  1673,  but  gave  it  back 
on  the  conclusion  of  peace  the  following  year.  In  1676  a  new 
charter  was  issued,  giving  the  eastern  part,  or  East  Jersey,  to 
Carteret,  and  the  western,  or  West  Jersey,  to  the  Quakers.  The 
two  provinces  were  then  governed  separately.  In  West  Jersey  the 
proprietor  "  put  the  power  in  the  people,"  giving  them  religious 
freedom  and  a  representative  assembly.  This  liberal  government 
attracted  settlers,  and  four  hundred  Quakers  came  over  in  1677. 
Their  first  settlement  was  at  Burlington.  In  1682  the  heirs  of 
Carteret  sold  East  Jersey  to  a  company  of  twenty-four,  including 
William  Penn.  This  province  then  received  a  government  very 
much  like  that  of  West  Jersey,  and  all  went  smoothly  for  a  time. 

The  disturbance  came  when  James  II.  revoked  the  Jersey 
charters  on  writs  of  quo  warranto  (1686)  and  added  them  to 
New  York  with  Andros  as  governor.  A  period  of  turbulence  then 
followed,  for  the  people  of  New  Jersey  were  no  less  democratic 
in  spirit  than  their  neighbors.  They  resisted  the  effort  of  Andros 
to  levy  taxes  without  a  representative  assembly,  and  disputed 
with  the  proprietors  about  the  quit-rents.  At  last  the  pro- 
prietors, weary  of  their  profitless  task,  surrendered  their  claims 
to  the  Crown,  and  New  Jersey  became  a  royal  province  (1702). 
Although  it  was  a  separate  province,  it  did  not  have  a  governor  of 
its  own.  The  governor  of  New  York  and  a  deputy  performed 
the  executive  functions.  This  was  a  constant  source  of  complaint 
on  the  part  of  the  people  of  New  Jersey,  and  finally  in  1738  they 
were  given  a  governor  of  their  own. 

During  Revolutionary  times  New  Jersey  made  at  least  one  im- 
portant contribution  to  constitutional  government.  This  consisted 
in  the  decision  of  a  court  that  an  act  of  the  Assembly  was  void 
because  it  violated  the  frame  of  government.31  The  case  is  that 
of  Holmes  vs.  Walton,  and  it  was  a  suit  involving  the  validity  of 
a  law  providing  for  a  jury  of  six  to  condemn  goods  seized  while 
being  carried  to  the  camp  of  the  enemy.     The  courts  held  that  the 

31  Whitehead,  "  The  English  in  East  and  West  Jersey,"  in  Winsor,  "  Nar, 
and  Crit.  Hist.,"  vol.  iii.  ch.  xi. 


110  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1681 

constitution  provided  for  a  jury  of  twelve  and  that  a  smaller  jury 
was  illegal.32 


VIII 

PENNSYLVANIA 

William  Penn,  the  founder  of  Pennsylvania,  was  born  in 
1644.  His  father  was  an  admiral  in  the  English  navy,  and  Wil- 
liam himself  was  popular  at  court  until  he  became  a  convert  to  the 
Quaker  faith,  nothing  of  which  could  have  been  more  at  variance 
with  the  tastes  of  Charles  II.  The  Quakers  were  guided  by  an 
"  inner  light,"  which  led  them  to  disregard  all  social  distinctions, 
to  refuse  to  engage  in  wars  or  pay  taxes  to  carry  them  on,  and  to 
practice  the  utmost  simplicity  in  their  manner  of  living.  Persecu- 
tion drove  them  into  many  extravagant  practices  which  members 
of  the  sect  to-day  would  not  defend;  but  on  the  whole  they  were 
fighting  the  battle  which  Socrates  fought  centuries  before  for  re- 
ligious and  intellectual  freedom.  When  William  Penn  became 
a  convert  to  their  faith  he  turned  to  the  New  World  to  see  if  there 
was  not  some  spot  where  his  people  could  be  free  from  the  pitiless 
laws  of  England  and  Massachusetts.33 

Upon  the  death  of  his  father,  William  Penn  became  heir  to 
a  claim  of  £16,000  against  the  English  king.  Penn  petitioned  the 
king  for  an  extensive  grant  of  land  north  of  Maryland,  not  as 
payment  for  his  debt,  but  in  order  that  he  might  restore  his  for- 
tunes. He  evidently  believed  that  by  careful  management  of  the 
plantation  he  would  be  able  to  meet  an  indebtedness  caused  by 
certain  Irish  losses  and  by  the  repudiation  of  the  debt  owed  him 
by  the  king.  This  grant,  in  spite  of  Perm's  protest,  was  named 
Pennsylvania  in  honor  of  Admiral  Penn.34  The  grant  also  con- 
tained the  seeds  of  the  customary  boundary  dispute.  It  began  be- 
tween Penn  and  Baltimore,  passed  on  to  their  heirs,  and  lasted 
nearly  a  hundred  years.  Finally  the  famous  Mason  and  Dixon's 
Line  was  run  between  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland  (1767)  and 
the  dispute  was  at  an  end.     Nearly  a  century  later  another  dis- 

32  "  American  Historical  Review,"  vol.  iv.  p.  456. 

33  Fiske,  "  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  ii.  p.  99 ;  Bancroft,  "  History  of 
the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  xvi.  * 

34  Andrews,   "  Colonial    Self   Government,"   p.    169. 


H     2 


C     no 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  111 

1681-1683 

pute  between  the  people  on  either  side  of  this  line  was  settled  by 
an  appeal  to  arms. 

The  charter  clothed  Penn  with  ample  powers  of  government, 
but  it  differed  from  previous  charters  in  at  least  two  important  re- 
spects. It  did  not  guarantee  to  the  settlers  the  rights  of  English- 
men and  it  reserved  to  the  English  Parliament  the  right  to  tax  the 
colonists.  Penn  at  once  prepared  a  pamphlet  advertising  his 
scheme  of  colonization.  This  set  forth  the  advantages  of  the 
colony,  the  kind  of  government  that  was  to  be  established,  and  the 
manner  in  which  land  would  be  granted.  One  hundred  acres  of 
land  could  be  had  for  two  pounds,  and  the  settlers  were  to  have  a 
share  in  framing  the  laws.  This  pamphlet  was  widely  distributed 
in  England,  Ireland,  Holland,  and  Germany.35  In  this  effort  Penn 
proved  himself  one  of  the  most  successful  advertisers  of  "  cheap 
western  land." 

The  liberal  terms  attracted  many  settlers,  and  three  shiploads 
came  over  in  1681,  under  the  leadership  of  William  Markham,  who 
became  the  first  governor.  A  few  Swedes  were  already  on  the 
ground  and  they  were  asked  to  remain.  Penn  himself  came  over 
the  following  year  and  took  up  the  work  of  supervising  the  colony. 
According  to  the  constitution  drawn  up  by  him,  the  governor 
was  to  be  appointed  by  the  proprietor,  but  all  other  executive 
officers  and  both  the  council  and  the  assembly  were  to  be  elected 
by  the  freemen.  At  first  laws  could  be  originated  only  by  the 
governor  and  council,  but  the  assembly  protested  against  this  and 
finally  won.  All  Christians,  except  servants  and  convicts,  enjoyed 
political  rights.  The  first  legislature  met  at  Chester  in  1682,  and 
the  second  at  Philadelphia  in  1683.  Among  the  laws  adopted  were 
some  providing  for  the  humane  treatment  of  the  Indians,  the  teach- 
ing of  a  trade  to  each  child,  the  useful  employment  and  reformation 
of  criminals,  and  religious  toleration. 

After  some  time  had  been  spent  in  allotting  lands,  Penn  passed 
up  the  Delaware  and  laid  out  Philadelphia,  determined  to  make  it 
unlike  the  crowded  cities  of  the  Old  World.  In  this  he  suc- 
ceeded, for  Philadelphia,  with  its  broad  streets  running  at  right 
angles  to  each  other,  has  become  the  model  followed  by  most 
American  cities.  Soon  after  this  he  met  the  chiefs  of  the  Delaware 
Indians  to  discuss  with  them  the  terms  of  purchase  for  their 
lands.  It  took  the  Indians  some  time  to  form  a  resolution,  but 
35  Andrews,  "  Colonial  Self  Government,"  p.  178. 


112  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1633-1776 

they  finally  came  to  terms  and  Penn  met  them  in  council  to  ratify 
the  agreement.  Benjamin  West's  celebrated  painting  gives  an  idea 
of  the  simplicity  and  mutual  confidence  which  characterized  the 
meeting.  The  promise  to  "  live  in  love  with  William  Penn  and 
his  children  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  give  light  "  was  kept  long 
after  those  who  made  it  had  passed  away.36 

Penn  desired  to  make  his  home  in  the  colony,  but  was  forced 
to  return  to  England  in  1684  by  the  boundary  dispute  with  Lord 
Baltimore.  In  1685  he  succeeded  in  getting  a  report  in  his  favor 
from  the  Lords  of  Trade.  He  was  also  of  great  help  to  his 
Quaker  friends,  who  were  being  severely  persecuted  as  dissenters. 
Owing  to  his  intimate  relations  with  the  Stuarts,  and  his  success 
in  receiving  the  royal  pardon  on  so  many  occasions,  he  was  sus- 
pected of  siding  with  them  at  the  time  of  the  revolution  (1688), 
and  was  deprived  of  his  colony  (1692).  It  was  restored  to  him 
two  years  later.  When  he  returned  to  America  in  1699  he  found 
that  this  little  colony  had  grown  to  one  of  twenty  thousand  inhab- 
itants and  that  the  child  in  its  maturer  growth  had  forgotten  some 
of  its  filial  regard.  Delaware  clamored  for  a  separate  legisla- 
ture, and  Penn  granted  it.  The  assembly  of  Pennsylvania  com- 
plained of  the  council,  and  its  influence  was  still  further  reduced. 
"  If."  said  the  greatest  of  all  the  colony  planters,  "  the  people 
want  of  me  anything  that  would  make  them  happier,  I  shall  readily 
grant  it."  Still  dissensions  went  on.  In  1701  he  again  left  the 
scene  of  his  philanthropic  labors,  never  to  return.  He  died  in 
17 18,  and  so  passed  one  who  was  indeed  the  greatest  and  best  of 
our  colonial  founders.  Yet  he  had  his  limitations.  He  appears 
to  have  been  sincere  in  his  attempts  to  found  a  government  based 
on  the  equality  of  human  rights,  yet  saw  no  inconsistency  in  en- 
slaving the  black  man,  though  his  will  did  provide  for  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  slaves.  Not  quite  a  century  later  a  celebrated  state- 
paper  drawn  up  in  Philadelphia  declared  that  all  men  were  created 
equal,  yet  nobody  dreamed  that  the  black  man  was  a  part  of  "  all 
men."  Upon  Penn's  death  the  colony  passed  to  his  heirs  and  re- 
mained to  them  a  source  of  perhaps  more  annoyance  than  profit 
until  the  Revolution. 

The  growth  of  Pennsylvania  was  rapid  and  substantial.  By 
the   time  of  the   Revolution   she   hardly  yielded   to   Virginia   and 

30  Fjske,   "Dutch   and  Quaker  Colonics,"  vol.  ii.  p.   150. 


NORTHERN     COLONIES  113 

1776 

Massachusetts  in  importance.  The  Germans,  the  Dutch,  the 
Scotch,  and  the  Scotch-Irish  came  to  swell  her  numbers,  and  their 
influence  exists  there  to  this  day.37 

37  For  a  comprehensive  constitutional  history  of  Pennsylvania  during  the 
Colonial  period,  see  W.  R.  Shepherd,  "  History  of  Proprietary  Government  in 
Pennsylvania." 


Chapter  V 

COLONIAL  GOVERNMENTS 
1606-1776 

BLACKSTONE,  in  his  commentaries,1  classified  the  Eng- 
lish colonial  governments  in  America  as  charter,  royal 
or  provincial,  and  proprietary,  and  this  classification  con- 
tinued until  very  recently  to  be  accepted  by  historical  writers  as 
the  most  convenient  and  logical  arrangement  which  could  be 
devised. 

The  charter  colony  was  described  as  one  whose  governmental 
organization  was  set  forth  in  a  charter  granted  by  the  Crown, 
which  charter  served  as  a  limitation  on  the  power  of  the  king. 
It  was  a  sort  of  civil  corporation  empowered  to  make  by-laws  not 
repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England.  The  royal  colony  was  under 
the  direct  and  immediate  authority  of  the  Crown,  subject  to  his 
pleasure  and  without  limitation  upon  his  power.  The  royal  com- 
missions to  the  governors  and  the  instructions  accompanying  them 
constituted  the  basis  of  the  government  of  the  colony.  The  pro- 
prietary colony  was  one  in  which  supreme  authority  was  vested 
in  a  proprietor  or  proprietaries,  who  received  a  grant  of  land  from 
the  king  in  the  nature  of  a  feudatory  principality.2 

A  more  scientific  and  logical  classification  is  that  suggested 
by  Professor  Osgood,  one  of  the  leading  authorities  on  American 
colonial  history.  He  classifies  the  thirteen  colonial  governments 
under  two  heads,  namely,  the  corporation  and  the  province.  The 
former  included  those  colonial  establishments  which  were  in  the 
nature  of  a  corporation  possessing  certain  privileges  of  govern- 
ment, which  were  set  forth  in  a  charter.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Revolution  there  were  three  such  colonies,  namely,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut.  The  provincial  group  included 
the  three  so-called  proprietary  colonies  of  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 

1  Blackstone,  "  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,"  vol.  i.  sec.  3. 

2  Story,  "  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,"  sec.  10. 

114 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  115 

1606-1776 

and  Maryland,  and  the  royal  colonies  of  Virginia,  the  Carolinas, 
New  Hampshire,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Georgia.3 

The  form  of  government  in  the  several  colonies  varied  from 
time  to  time,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  two  of  them,  namely, 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  continued  under  the  same  form 
from  their  establishment  until  the  Revolution.  The  corporate  and 
proprietary  forms  were  the  most  general  at  first,  and  until  1685, 
in  fact,  there  were  no  royal  governments  in  America  except  in 
Virginia  and  New  Hampshire.  From  the  standpoint  of  the 
Crown,  however,  there  were  serious  objections  to  the  corporate 
and  proprietary  governments,  and  they  gradually  fell  into  disfavor. 
This  was  due  mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  former  possessed  rather 
too  much  local  autonomy  to  admit  of  effective  royal  control,  while 
the  latter  had  certain  inherent  defects  in  the  nature  of  their  form 
of  organization  that  led  to  prolonged  controversies  and  embarrass- 
ments to  the  royal  interests.4 

During  the  last  years  of  the  Stuart  period,  therefore,  a  policy 
looking  toward  the  establishment  of  a  more  effective  royal  con- 
trol over  the  colonies  was  adopted.  In  pursuance  of  the  new 
policy  one  colony  after  another  was  deprived  of  its  charter,  often 
on  mere  technical  grounds,  by  means  of  the  writ  of  quo  warranto 
instituted  by  the  Attorney-General.  The  result  was  that  by  1729 
all  of  the  colonies  except  four  (Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Connecti- 
cut, and  Rhode  Island)  had  been  brought  directly  under  royal  con- 
trol, and  the  colony  of  Georgia,  founded  after  this  date,  suffered 
the  same  fate  in  1752.  It  is  but  fair  to  say,  however,  that  in 
making  this  change  the  Crown  was  not  always  animated  by  a  spirit 
of  hostility  to  the  liberties  of  the  colonists,  but  its  action  was 
adopted  partly  in  the  interests  of  stricter  enforcement  of  the  laws 
and  the  establishment  of  a  more  efficient  government.  In  the  place 
of  the  liberal  charter  originally  granted  Massachusetts,  and  under 
which  it  had  existed  for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century  as  a 

3  See  his  article  in  the  "  Political  Science  Quarterly,"  vol.  ii. ;  also  his 
"  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,"  vol.  i.  pp.  28-29.  Professor 
Osgood  shows  that  the  term  "  charter "  cannot  be  used  to  describe  a  form  of 
government,  that  it  signifies  nothing  as  to  internal  organization,  and  that  such 
a  term  relates  only  to  the  method  of  origin.  Moreover,  the  proprietary  colonies 
also  had  charters,  and  the  royal  colonies  were,  so  far  as  internal  organization  was 
concerned,  essentially  the  same  as  the  proprietary  colonies. 

4E.  B.  Greene,  "The  Provincial  Governor,"  pp.  11-15;  see  also  the  author's 
later  and  more  comprehensive  work,  "  Provincial  America,"  chs.  iii.  and  iv. 


116  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

practically  self-governing  commonwealth,  a  less  liberal  instrument 
was  substituted  in  1691,  which  virtually  reduced  the  colony  to  the 
position  of  a  royal  province.  Connecticut  successfully  warded  off 
all  attacks  upon  its  charter  and  continued  alone  with  Rhode  Island 
to  enjoy  virtual  self-government  throughout  the  entire  colonial 
period,  the  liberal  charters  of  both  being  retained,  in  fact,  as  con- 
stitutions long  after  the  two  colonies  had  become  commonwealths 
of  the  American  Union.  As  colonies  they  occupied  a  class  by 
themselves  and  rarely  had  cause  of  complaint  against  the  colonial 
policy  of  the  mother  country. 

On  the  whole,  there  was  a  striking  similarity  in  the  forms  of 
political  organization  prevailing  in  the  several  colonies.  In  each 
there  was  a  governor,  who  was  the  chief  executive  of  the  colony, 
a  legislature  consisting  of  a  council  and  a  popular  assembly  and 
a  judiciary.  The  governor  was  chosen  in  the  self-governing  com- 
monwealths of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  by  popular  vote;  in 
the  so-called  royal  colonies  he  was  appointed  by  the  Crown,  usually 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Board  of  Trade;  and  in  the  so- 
called  proprietary  provinces  by  the  proprietor  with  the  approval  of 
the  Crown.  The  methods  by  which  appointments  to  colonial  gover- 
norships were  secured  were  often  corrupt  and  dishonorable,  and  not 
infrequently  non-residents  of  poor  character,  persons  broken  in  for- 
tune, or  individuals  who  had  become  political  outcasts  at  home  were 
sent  over  to  govern  in  America  and  incidentally  to  recover  their 
lost  prestige  and  fortune.5 

The  tenure  of  the  governor  was  usually  stated  in  his  com- 
mission to  be  at  the  king's  pleasure;  the  average  term  in  Massa- 
chusetts, after  the  new  charter  of  1691,  being  about  eight  years. 
Life  commissions  such  as  that  granted  to  Lord  Delaware  were  rare. 
The  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  governor  sometimes  included  sev- 
eral colonies,  as  was  the  case  with  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  who  in 
1688  was  made  governor  of  New  England,  New  Jersey,  and  New 
York,  and  of  the  P2arl  of  Bellomont.  who  in  1697  became  governor 
of  Massachusetts,  New  York,  and  New  Hampshire. 

The  governor's  salary  was  larger  in  proportion  than  at  the 
present  time,  to  enable  him  to  maintain  a  semi-regal  dignity,  as  the 
representative  of  the  Crown.  In  addition  to  a  stipulated  salary  he 
received   fees  and   perquisites  of  various  kinds  and  sometimes  a 

B  Greene,    "  The    Provincial    Governor,"    p.    47. 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  117 

1606-1776 

share  of  fines  and  forfeitures,  or  a  percentage  of  the  property  of 
persons  dying  intestate. 

The  legal  position  of  the  governor  in  the  royal  colonies  was 
of  a  two-fold  character:  he  was  the  chief  executive  of  the  colony 
and  the  resident  agent  of  the  home  government.  As  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Crown  he  recommended  to  the  colonial  assembly 
legislation  which  the  Crown  desired  to  have  enacted,  kept  the 
home  government  informed  of  the  condition  of  the  province  and  of 
its  needs,  transmitted  statutes,  records  of  legislative  proceedings 
and  other  documents,  and  exerted  himself  to  prevent  the  passage  of 
laws  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  Crown  and  the  mother  country. 
The  organ  through  which  the  governor  communicated  with  the 
home  government  was  the  "  Board  of  Trade,"  or  the  "  Lords  of 
Trade  and  Plantations,"  as  it  was  called.  This  board  was 
created  by  an  Order  in  Council  in  1696  for  "  promoting  the  trade 
ot  the  Kingdom  and  for  inspecting  and  improving  his  majesty's 
plantations  in  America  and  elsewhere."  It  examined  the  royal 
instructions  intended  to  be  sent  to  the  governors  and  recommended 
alterations  where  changes  seemed  desirable ;  to  it  colonial  governors 
made  regular  reports;  it  recommended  to  the  Crown  suitable  per- 
sons for  appointment  as  governors  or  councilors;  made  an  annual 
report  of  the  condition  of  the  colonies ;  and  exercised  general  super- 
vision over  colonial  administration. 

The  powers  of  the  royal  governors  were  embodied  in  theii 
commissions  and  the  instructions  which  were  issued  to  them  from 
time  to  time,  or  were  drawn  by  implication  from  the  vice-regal 
character  of  the  governor's  position.  Besides  the  powers  expressly 
conferred  by  the  commission  or  letter  of  instructions,  they  inherited 
various  traditions  of  the  royal  prerogative,  such  for  example,  as  the 
custom  of  approving  the  choice  of  the  speaker  by  the  assembly, 
which  was  not  always  a  mere  formality  as  in  England,  adminis- 
tering oaths  of  allegiance,  and  other  similar  functions.  As  the 
military  representative  of  the  king  the  governor  commanded  the 
local  militia,  conducted  campaigns  against  the  Indians,  constructed 
fortifications,  declared  martial  law,  and,  as  vice-admiral,  had  the 
right  to  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  and  erect  admiralty 
courts. 

The  power  of  the  Crown  in  matters  of  executive  clemency 
naturally  passed  to  his  representative  in  the  colonies,  and  so  we 
find  that  as  a  general  rule  the  governor  could  grant  pardons  to  of- 


118  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

fenders,  except  in  cases  of  treason  or  impeachment  and  some- 
times of  murder.  Included  under  this  head  also  was  the  power  to 
remit  fines  and  forfeitures.  In  the  relations  of  the  colony  with 
the  Indian  tribes,  as  well  as  the  relation  of  one  colony  to  another, 
the  governor  was  the  representative  of  the  Crown.  In  the  do- 
main of  internal  administration  a  source  of  great  power  was  the 
right  to  create  offices  and  appoint  their  incumbents.  In  Massachu- 
setts, however,  the  higher  administrative  officers  were  appointed 
by  the  General  Court,  as  the  legislature  was  called,  while  in  some 
of  the  other  colonies  they  were  appointed  directly  by  the  Crown. 
But  in  all  the  colonies  the  governor  appointed  the  local  judicial,  ad- 
ministrative and  military  officers. 

The  financial  powers  of  the  governor  were  large  at  first,  but 
steadily  decreased  with  the  growth  of  the  popular  assembly,  which 
took  away  from  him  important  powers  and  reserved  them  for 
itself.  Among  the  powers  of  the  governor  under  the  head  of  leg- 
islation were  those  of  summoning,  proroguing,  adjourning  and  dis- 
solving the  legislature,  the  right  to  recommend  measures  for  en- 
actment into  law,  and  sometimes  the  right  to  initiate  them  in  the 
assembly.  In  case  of  revenue  bills,  however,  the  governor  gradu- 
ally lost  the  right  of  initiation  on  account  of  the  objection  raised 
by  the  popular  assemblies.  The  home  government  usually  required 
that  all  acts  passed  by  the  provincial  assemblies,  and  approved  by 
the  governor,  should  be  sent  to  England  within  three  months  after 
their  passage  for  approval  or  disallowance  by  the  Crown,  although 
in  Pennsylvania  the  period  was  five  years.  If  not  expressly  dis- 
allowed, they  were  to  be  enforced  as  valid  laws.  The  governor 
was  forbidden  to  approve  certain  measures,  which  unduly  favored 
the  interests  of  the  colony  against  those  of  the  Crown.  The  re- 
quirement that  laws  enacted  by  the  colonial  legislature  should  be 
sent  home  for  examination  was  so  often  evaded  that  the  royal 
restrictions  upon  the  power  of  the  governor  to  give  his  assent  to 
bills  were  not  strictly  enforced.  Among  the  miscellaneous  powers 
of  the  governor  were  the  right  to  establish  ports,  markets,  and 
fairs,  grant  lands,  issue  charters  of  incorporation,  make  appoint- 
ments to  certain  ecclesiastical  benefices,  grant  marriage  licenses, 
take  care  of  the  great  seal,  exercise  a  censorship  over  the  press  and 
oversee  the  Established  Church.6     In  most  of  the  colonies  there 

6  For  a  scholarly  discussion   of  the  powers  of  the  Colonial   Governor,  see 
Greene;  "The  Provincial  Governor,"  pp.  91-165. 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  119 

1606-1776 

was  a  lieutenant  governor,  who  discharged  the  duties  of  the  gov- 
ernor during  his  absence  from  the  colony. 

In  every  colony  there  was  a  council  which  acted  as  an  advisory 
body  to  the  governor,  sometimes  shared  the  executive  power  with 
him,  usually  served  as  the  upper  house  of  the  legislature  and  fre- 
quently acted  as  the  highest  court  of  appeal  in  the  colony.  There 
was  a  long  list  of  executive  acts  which  could  not  be  performed 
without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  such  as  calling  the 
legislature,  the  erection  of  courts,  the  declaration  of  martial  law, 
and  the  making  of  appointments.  The  number  of  councilors  varied 
from  three  in  Maryland  to  twenty-eight  in  Massachusetts,  the 
usual  number  being  twelve.  In  the  royal  colonies  the  council  was 
appointed  by  the  governor,  sometimes  by  the  Crown.  It  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  proprietor  on  the  nomination  of  the  governor  in 
the  proprietary  colonies,  and  in  Massachusetts  by  the  General 
Court.  Where  the  executive  power  was  vested  in  the  governor 
and  council  jointly,  which  was  not  infrequently  the  case,  there  were 
often  bickerings  and  clashes  of  authority  between  the  two.  The 
governor  often  showed  a  disposition  to  treat  the  council  merely  as 
an  advisory  restraining  body  rather  than  a  coordinate  and  equal 
authority,  a  procedure  which  the  council  strongly  resented.  Dur- 
ing the  early  colonial  period  the  governor  claimed  and  exercised 
the  right  to  sit  with  the  council  when  it  was  serving  as  the  upper 
house  of  the  legislature,  and  to  make  motions  and  vote  as  other 
members,  but  the  assembly  objected  and  the  right  was  gradually 
lost  either  by  act  of  the  Crown  or  by  act  of  the  legislature,  as  in 
South  Carolina,  where  the  presence  of  the  governor  during  the 
debates  was  declared  to  be  of  an  "  unparliamentary  nature,"  in  con- 
sequence of  which  the  house  refused  to  proceed  with  its  business 
until  he  withdrew. 

The  lower  house  of  the  legislature,  variously  called  the  Assem- 
bly, the  House  of  Delegates,  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the 
General  Court,  was  chosen  by  the  people,  but  the  franchise  was 
so  narrow  as  to  be  hardly  entitled  to  be  called  popular  suffrage. 
Besides  higher  property  qualifications,  church  membership  or  other 
religious  tests  were  frequently  required.  In  structure  the  legis- 
lature was  bicameral  in  every  colony  except  Pennsylvania  and 
Georgia,  where  the  single  chambered  body  was  preferred,  but  soon 
after  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  these  two  colonies 
changed  to  the  bicameral  form.     The  first  representative  assembly 


120  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

in  America  was  called  in  Virginia  in  1619  and  was  known  as  the 
House  of  Burgesses.  The  principle  of  representation  was  soon 
adopted  in  other  colonies,  as  possessing  distinct  advantages  over 
that  of  the  pure  democracy.  It  was  introduced  in  Massachusetts 
in  1634,  in  Maryland  in  1647,  an<^  in  Georgia  in  1752. 

Between  the  governor,  who  represented  the  royal  interests, 
and  the  legislative  assembly,  which  represented  the  interests  of  the 
people,  there  were  frequent  conflicts  of  authority  which  led  to 
important  constitutional  results  in  the  relations  between  the  execu- 
tive and  the  legislature.  The  governor,  as  the  agent  of  the  king, 
was  anxious  to  see  that  the  interests  of  the  Crown  were  advanced, 
and  that,  in  short,  whatever  was  the  king's  due  should  be  forth- 
coming regardless  of  popular  interests.  But  it  was  utterly  im- 
possible for  the  governor  to  protect  the  imperial  powers  and  main- 
tain the  royal  prerogative  intact  without  encroaching  upon  the 
popular  interests,  as  they  came  to  be  understood  by  the  colonists 
themselves,  and  the  defense  of  these  latter  interests  against  royal 
encroachment  virtually  fell  to  the  popularly  elected  legislative  as- 
semblies. In  the  contest  which  ensued  they  had  the  main  advan- 
tage as  a  result  of  their  power  to  grant  or  withhold  supplies.  But 
over  against  this  was  the  power  of  the  governor  to  prorogue  or 
dissolve  a  refractory  assembly  —  a  power  which  was  frequently 
resorted  to,  but  seldom  with  permanent  effect.  The  governor's 
dependence  upon  the  assembly  for  his  salary  placed  him,  of  course, 
virtually  at  the  mercy  of  that  body. 

Very  early  in  the  history  of  the  American  colonies  the  Crown 
adopted  the  policy  of  throwing  the  burden  of  supporting  the  royal 
government  upon  the  colonies,  and  the  legislatures  had  very  gen- 
erally persisted  in  making  the  supply  grants  for  the  civil  list  annual 
instead  of  permanent,  as  the  Crown  urged  and  ordered,  for  they 
realized  that  if  the  governors  ceased  to  be  dependent  upon  the 
legislature  for  their  salaries  they  would  be  beyond  legislative  con- 
trol. This  gave  the  assembly  an  effective  weapon  and  it  was  used 
with  success.  Sometimes  the  legislature  would  refuse  to  consider 
appropriation  bills  for  the  payment  of  the  governor's  salary  until 
he  had  signed  certain  acts  which  had  been  passed  and  which  the 
assembly  wished  approved  by  that  executive.  The  system  became 
practically  one  of  bargain  and  sale,  the  people  buying  from  the 
governor  for  cash  such  laws  as  they  needed.  The  custom  grew 
that  the  dependence  of  the  colonies  upon  the  king  was  perpetuated, 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  121 

1606-1776 

up  in  some  colonies  of  presenting  the  governor  with  a  purse  of  a 
thousand  dollars  or  more  at  the  close  of  each  session,  providing 
he  agreed  with  the  assembly;  otherwise  it  was  withheld.7 

The  assembly  soon  found  other  means  of  limiting  the  power 
of  the  executive.  Thus,  in  making  appropriations  of  money,  it 
directed  the  purposes  for  which  the  money  should  be  spent.  In 
military  matters  this  enabled  the  assembly  to  direct  in  a  large 
measure  the  course  of  military  operations,  leaving  the  governor 
little  more  to  do  than  carry  out  its  orders.  The  next  step  was 
for  the  assembly  to  claim  the  right  to  appoint  the  officers  who  were 
charged  with  the  collection,  custody,  and  disbursement  of  the  public 
funds.  The  right  of  the  assembly  in  this  matter  was  soon  estab- 
lished, and  thus  again  the  executive  prerogative  was  reduced.  In 
the  course  of  time  the  appointment  and  control  of  other  offices  was 
transferred  from  the  governor  to  the  legislature,  so  that  by  the 
time  of  the  Revolution  the  governor  retained  but  a  shadow  of  his 
former  great  appointing  power.  As  already  stated,  the  governor 
frequently  exercised  his  power  of  dissolution  to  prevent  refractory 
assemblies  from  encroaching  upon  his  prerogative,  but  it  was 
usually  in  vain,  because  he  could  not  administer  the  government 
without  the  cooperation  of  the  legislature,  and  a  new  one  was  not 
likely  to  be  more  subservient  than  the  one  dissolved.  The  result, 
therefore,  of  the  long  struggle  between  the  legislature  and  the  gov- 
ernor for  power  was  the  triumph  of  the  former,  just  as  the  some- 
what similar  struggle  between  king  and  Parliament  in  England 
had  resulted  in  the  victory  of  the  Parliament. 

The  colonial  judiciary  began  with  the  justice  of  the  peace, 
who  was  usually  appointed  by  the  governor  for  short  terms  and 
whose  jurisdiction  included  the  trial  of  petty  civil  cases.  Next 
above  the  justice  court  was  the  county  court,  which  tried  more  im- 
portant civil  cases  and  minor  criminal  cases,  and  which  frequently 
performed  various  administrative  duties  relating  to  highways,  care 
of  the  poor,  and  like  things.  The  crown  of  the  judicial  system 
was  a  supreme  court  to  hear  cases  of  appeal  and  exercise  original 
jurisdiction  in  certain  cases;  but  appeals  were  allowed  to  be  taken 
to  the  Privy  Council  of  England.  The  erection  of  courts  of  jus- 
tice was  usually  one  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  governor,  as  was 
also  the  appointment  of  the  judges.  In  many  of  the  colonies  the 
terms  of  the  judges  were  fixed  at  good  behavior;  but  the  Crown 
7  "  Franklin's  Works,"  Bigelow  edition,  vol.  Hi.  pp.  311   et  seq. 


122  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

came  to  discourage  this  practice  and  ultimately  to  forbid  it  for  the 
reason  that  life  terms  made  the  judges  too  independent  of  the 
Crown.  The  king,  therefore,  gave  instructions  to  the  governors 
that  judicial  commissions  be  granted  "  during  pleasure  "  only,  and 
in  1 76 1  notified  them  that  a  violation  of  this  instruction  would  be 
a  cause  for  removal.  Likewise  the  assemblies  insisted  on  paying 
the  judges'  salaries  by  annual  grants  as  a  future  means  of  con- 
trolling them.  If  the  Crown  both  appointed  the  judges  and  al- 
lowed them  permanent  salaries,  the  subserviency  of  the  judiciary 
to  the  Crown  would  be  complete  and  the  decisions  would  all  be 
Crown  decisions. 

The  colonies  were  of  course  unrepresented  in  the  imperial 
Parliament,  and  it  was  this  fact  that  subsequently  led  them  to  pro- 
test when  the  mother  country  undertook  to  impose  taxes  upon 
them.  They  bore,  however,  the  expense  of  local  administration, 
and  sometimes  upon  the  request  of  the  Crown  made  voluntary 
grants  for  imperial  purposes.  In  matters  of  interest  to  the  em- 
pire, Parliament  legislated  directly  for  the  colonies;  but  unless 
expressly  mentioned  in  the  act  no  parliamentary  statute  applied 
to  them.  Nevertheless,  the  colonies  were  supposed  to  enjoy  all 
the  rights  of  natural-born  Englishmen.  Being  without  representa- 
tion in  Parliament,  the  colonies  adopted  the  practice  of  maintaining 
resident  agents  in  England  to  look  after  their  political  and  com- 
mercial interests.  Just  before  the  Revolution,  when  the  contro- 
versy between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country  was  ripening, 
the  duties  of  these  agents  became  very  important  and  they  grad- 
ually acquired  a  quasi  diplomatic  character.  They  were  some- 
times called  upon  to  give  testimony  before  Parliamentary  com- 
mittees and  frequently  appeared  before  the  Board  of  Trade  in  the 
interests  of  the  colonies.  Not  infrequently  several  colonies  em- 
ployed the  same  agent  to  represent  them  at  London.  Thus 
Benjamin  Franklin  acted  in  this  capacity  for  Massachusetts,  Penn- 
sylvania, New  Jersey,  and  several  other  colonies  at  the  same  time. 

The  system  of  local  government  in  the  colonies  possessed  less 
uniformity  than  did  the  central  governments.  They  were,  in 
fact,  three  general  types  of  local  government,  namely,  that  which 
prevailed  in  New  England,  that  of  the  middle  colonies  and  that 
of  the  southern  colonies.  In  New  England  the  town  with  its  un- 
pretentious church  and  schoolhouse  was  the  unit  of  local  govern- 
ment, and  was  represented  in  the  legislature.     Instead  of  electing 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  123 

1606-1776 

representatives  to  lay  their  taxes,  enact  local  regulations  and  attend 
to  various  other  matters  relating  to  religion,  care  of  highways,  the 
poor,  and  the  like,  the  people  themselves  assembled  in  town-meeting 
and  enacted  their  own  local  laws  and  voted  the  taxes.  The  local 
government  of  New  England  was  in  other  words  a  pure  democracy. 
Originally  all  male  inhabitants  of  legal  age  were  allowed  to  par- 
ticipate in  its  deliberations.  The  town-meeting,  summoned  by  the 
constable  under  authority  of  the  selectmen's  warrant,  was  usually 
held  in  the  church  or  "  meeting-house,"  and  non-attendance  was 
punished  by  a  fine.  The  frequency  with  which  meetings  were  held 
must  have  involved  a  serious  encroachment  upon  the  ordinary 
business  of  the  community.8  The  meeting,  once  assembled,  was 
organized  by  the  election  of  a  moderator  or  presiding  officer,  the 
town  clerk  always  as  ex-ofhcio  secretary.  No  one  could  speak 
without  the  permission  of  the  moderator,  and  fines  were  imposed 
for  disorderly  conduct.  The  principal  officers  elected  at  the  meet- 
ing were  the  selectmen,  the  number  varying  from  three  to  nine,  who 
looked  after  the  enforcement  of  local  regulations  and  the  general 
supervision  of  the  poor  of  the  town.  Other  officers  were  the  town 
clerk,  assessors,  treasurer,  constables,  school-committees,  overseers 
of  the  poor,  fence-viewers,  pound-keepers,  field-drivers,  sealers  of 
weights  and  measures,  and  surveyors.  In  addition  to  this  rather 
imposing  list  of  officials  there  were  various  other  functionaries  in 
some  of  the  New  England  towns,  such  as  inspectors  of  hides,  fish 
and  brick,  measurers  of  various  articles,  preservers  of  deer,  deer- 
reeves,  wood-corders,  rebukers  of  boys,  swine-yokers,  and  ringers, 
overseers  of  chimneys,  persons  to  keep  dogs  out  of  church,  branders 
of  cattle,  and  even  town  fishers,  town  grubbers,  and  town  doctors. 
Boston,  in  1 690-1 691,  had  ten  constables,  seven  surveyors  of  high- 
ways, four  clerks  of  the  market,  four  sealers  of  leather,  six  hog 
reeves,  three  criers,  sixteen  wood-corders,  eight  overseers  of  wood- 
corders,  four  overseers  of  chimneys,  and  thirty-six  tithingmen.9 
The  county  in  New  England  as  a  political  unit  played  an  insignifi- 
cant role,  and  that  is  true  to-day,  local  government  being  carried 
on  mainly  through  the  agency  of  town-meeting,  while  the  county 
survives  rather  as  a  judicial  and  elective  district10 

8  See  Howard,  "  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  p.  62 ; 
also  MlcKinley,  "  The  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  English  Colonies,"  p.  361. 

9  Howard,  "  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  p.  99. 
10  Goodnow,  "  Comparative  Administrative  Law,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  ii. 


124  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

The  southern  colonies  differed  from  those  of  New  England 
quite  as  much  in  their  local  polity  as  in  their  social  and  economic 
life.  Here  the  pure  democracy  of  New  England  never  gained  a 
foothold;  it  was  in  fact  impracticable,  if  not  impossible.  Instead 
of  populous,  compact  towns,  as  in  New  England,  there  were  large 
plantations  scattered  throughout  the  colony  and  cultivated  mainly 
by  slave  labor.  This,  with  other  causes,  both  economic  and  social, 
interfered  with  the  natural  growth  of  towns  and  villages,  and 
consequently  made  necessary  a  more  representative  type  of  local 
government  than  that  which  prevailed  in  New  England.  Instead 
of  the  town,  therefore,  the  parish  became  the  unit  of  local  govern- 
ment. The  governing  body  of  the  parish  was  the  vestry,  com- 
posed of  twelve  men,  at  first  popularly  elected,  but  eventually  be- 
coming a  close  corporation  with  power  to  fill  its  own  vacancies.11 
It  appointed  the  local  administrative  officers,  the  principal  of  which 
were  the  two  churchwardens,  and  levied  the  taxes,  but  was  not,  as 
in  New  England,  the  unit  of  representation  in  the  legislature,  that 
unit  being  the  county.  About  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury most  of  the  secular  duties  of  the  vestry  in  Virginia  were  taken 
over  by  the  county  court,  leaving  the  vestry  merely  ecclesiastical 
functions.  At  the  head  of  the  county  was  a  lieutenant  who  corre- 
sponded in  a  rough  way  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  in  England,  was 
a  sort  of  deputy  to  the  governor  and  bore  the  honorary  title  of 
"  Colonel."  He  was  the  commander  of  the  county  militia,  and  as 
a  member  of  the  governor's  council  exercised  other  important  non- 
military  duties.  The  chief  civil  officer  of  the  county  was  the 
sheriff,  who  was  appointed  by  the  governor  upon  the  nomination 
of  the  county  justices.  He  was  collector  of  the  taxes,  acted  as 
treasurer,  executed  the  judgments  of  the  courts,  and  performed 
many  other  important  duties.  Other  local  officers  were  the  justices 
of  the  peace,  usually  eight  in  number,  for  each  county,  who,  like 
the  English  justices,  were  probably  the  most  important  of  all  the 
local  officials.  They  were  not  only  judicial  magistrates,  but  ad- 
ministrators as  well.  In  the  former  capacity  they  held  courts 
usually  four  times  a  year,  after  the  manner  of  the  English  quarter 
sessions,  while  in  the  latter  capacity  they  levied  the  county  taxes, 
passed  local  regulations  and  acted  as  the  general  administrative 
authority  of  the  county  in  the  management  of  a  great  variety  of 
interests,  such  as  the  care  of  highways,  the  repairing  of  bridges, 
11  Howard,  "Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  p.   119. 


COLONIAL     GOVERNMENTS  125 

1606-1776 

and  the  appointment  of  officers.  The  justices  were  appointed  by 
the  governor  and  held  office  during  his  pleasure.  The  Virginia 
system  of  local  government  was  of  course  wholly  undemocratic, 
quite  as  much  so  as  the  Virginia  social  order.  In  the  other  south- 
ern colonies  there  were  variations  from  the  Virginia  type,  but  the 
broad  outlines  were  the  same. 

In  the  middle  colonies  the  system  of  local  government  was  in 
the  nature  of  a  compromise  between  the  New  England  town  meet- 
ing and  the  southern  county  commission.  Here  the  county  was 
neither  the  supreme  local  unit,  as  in  the  south,  nor  a  mere  survival 
as  in  New  England.  In  New  York  the  county  was  divided  into 
townships,  each  of  which  elected  a  supervisor  to  represent  it  on  the 
county  board  of  supervisors,  which  authority  was  charged  with  the 
general  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  county. 

The  townships,  however,  did  not  lose  their  individuality  as 
local  units  of  government.  For  a  time  purely  township  affairs  were 
even  regulated  by  a  town  meeting,  but  rather  rudimentary  in  form, 
as  compared  with  that  of  New  England.  In  Pennsylvania  the 
form  of  local  government  was  very  similar  to  that  of  New  York; 
that  is,  it  was  administered  by  a  county  board  of  commissioners. 
Here,  however,  the  commissioners  were  chosen  from  the  county 
at  large  and  did  not  therefore  represent  a  particular  township. 
But  each  township  had  its  own  local  government  and  cared  for 
such  matters  as  local  police,  the  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes, 
the  maintenance  and  repair  of  highways,  and  the  like.  The  system 
of  local  government  in  the  middle  colonies  was  more  democratic 
than  that  of  the  south,  yet  it  did  not  go  to  the  other  extreme  of  the 
New  England  pure  democracy.  It  was  well  adapted  to  secure 
efficiency  and  local  autonomy  and  has  come  to  be  adopted  in  the 
great  majority  of  the  States  of  the  Union. 


Chapter  VI 


COLONIAL  LIFE  AND  INSTITUTIONS 
1 606-1 776 


POPULATION,   RACES   AND   CLASSES 

AT  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  total  popula- 
tion of  the  thirteen  colonies  was  estimated  by  Bancroft  at 
262,000.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  it  was  be- 
tween 2,000,000  and  2,500,000  inhabitants,  of  whom  not  less  than 
400,000  were  African  slaves.1  It  ranged  from  about  8,000  in 
Georgia  to  over  300,000  in  Virginia;  Massachusetts  and  Penn- 
sylvania being  next  to  Virginia  the  most  populous  States. 
The  English  were  everywhere  the  dominant  race,  although 
there  was  a  large  Dutch  element  in  New  York.  There  was 
a  sprinkling  of  Dutch,  Swedes  and  Germans  in  New  Jer- 
sey and  Delaware,  many  Germans  and  some  Welsh,  Dutch 
and  Irish  in  Pennsylvania,  as  well  as  a  large  element  of 
Scotch-Irish.  Pennsylvania  became  the  distributing  center  for 
Germans  and  Scotch-Irish.  From  her  borders  streams  of  emi- 
grants flowed  south  and  southwest  down  the  valleys  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  into  western  Maryland,  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas,  and 
over  the  mountains  into  the  country  afterwards  erected  into  the 
States  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  Revo- 
lution the  Germans  constituted  about  one-third  of  the  population 
of  Pennsylvania,  or  a  total  of  about  100.000.  Indeed,  the  German 
immigrants  were  so  numerous  that   the   English   authorities   felt 

1  Bancroft's  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  vi.  p.  390.  The  estimate 
of  the  Board  of  Trade  was  somewhat  larger  than  that  of  Bancroft.  An  esti- 
mate of  the  white  population  made  in  1783  for  the  purpose  of  assessment  placed 
the  number  at  2,389,300.  No  census  was  taken  until  1790,  at  which  time  the 
population  was  found  to  be  3,900,000.  The  least  populous  State,  according  to 
the  census  of  1790,  was  Delaware,  with  59,094  inhabitants,  and  the  most  popu- 
lous was  Virginia,  with  747,600. 

126 


COLONIAL     LIFE  127 

1606-1776 

alarmed  for  the  safety  of  the  colony.  As  a  whole  they  were  an 
honest,  industrious,  religious  people,  so  conservative  and  tenacious 
of  their  customs  and  language  that  whole  communities  of  their 
descendants  to-day  speak  a  dialect  commonly  known  as  Pennsyl- 
vania Dutch. 

The  Scotch-Irish  element,  as  it  is  popularly  called,  consisted 
of  Presbyterians  from  Ulster,  Ireland.  Here  their  ancestors  had 
made  their  home  for  generations,  but  driven  by  English  oppression 
and  religious  persecutions,  they  began  to  flock  to  America  about 
the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  estimated  that  before 
the  Revolution  half  the  Presbyterian  population  of  Ulster  had  emi- 
grated to  America.  Some  went  to  New  England,  some  to  Vir- 
ginia; but  by  far  the  greater  part  settled  in  Pennsylvania,  and 
from  there  spread  southward  into  the  Carolinas,  Georgia,  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee.  By  the  time  of  the  Revolution  they  prac- 
tically constituted  about  one-sixth  of  the  total  population,  and  their 
descendants  have  played  an  important  part  in  the  history  of  the 
country.  There  were  many  French  Huguenots  in  New  York,  the 
Carolinas  and  Georgia,  and  some  of  them  in  almost  every  colony. 
They  were  an  industrious,  thrifty  people,  who  came  over  in  large 
numbers  after  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in  1685,  and 
a  number  of  their  descendants  occupied  prominent  stations  during 
the  Revolution.  Except  for  some  Scotch-Irish  in  New  Hampshire 
and  some  Huguenots  in  Massachusetts  and  Rhode  Island,  New 
England  was  purely  English.2  There  were  some  small  groups  of 
Jews,  Finns,  Salzburgers  and  Moravians  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  but  they  were  so  inconsiderable  in  number  as  to  be  with- 
out effect  upon  the  general  character  of  the  population. 

The  population  at  this  time  was  mainly  rural,  and  in  the 
south  wholly  so.  The  largest  city  probably  in  America  was  Phila- 
delphia, which  in  1760  had  a  population  of  25,000.  Boston  had 
about  the  same  number  and  New  York  some  15,000  to  18,000. 
Boston  and  Philadelphia  were  then  among  the  largest  towns  out- 
side of  London  in  the  king's  dominions,  ranking  with  Bristol  and 
Liverpool.  In  1790  only  about  three  persons  in  a  hundred  lived  in 
cities3  having  a  population  exceeding  5,000;  now  the  proportion  is 
about  thirty-five  out  of  one  hundred ;  from  half  a  dozen  cities  with 

2  Read   Greene,   "  Immigration  and   Expansion,"   in   "  Provincial   America," 
ch.   xiv. 

3  Webber,   "  Growth   of   Cities,"   p.   23. 


128  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

populations  exceeding  8,000  each  we  have  grown  to  be  a  country 
having  not  less  than  545  such  cities.4 

In  addition  to  the  white  inhabitants  every  colony  had  a  more 
or  less  considerable  negro  population,  practically  all  of  which  at 
this  time  was  held  in  slavery.  By  far  the  greater  number  of 
blacks,  however,  were  in  the  southern  colonies,  where  they  were 
well  adapted  to  the  warm  climate,  and  where  slave  labor  was 
profitable,  if  not  indispensable,  to  the  cultivation  of  the  great  to- 
bacco, rice  and  indigo  plantations.  Here  the  institution  of  slavery 
throve  and  grew  until  by  the  invention  of  Eli  Whitney  it  became 
an  important  factor  in  the  southern  economic  system. 

In  the  colonies  of  the  north  the  number  of  slaves  was  com- 
paratively small  and  they  were  held  mainly  as  house  servants. 
Neither  the  climate  nor  the  industries  of  this  region  was  favorable 
to  negro  slavery,  and  so,  after  1750,  the  number  rather  declined 
than  increased.  Some  of  the  colonies  had  very  early  foreseen  the 
evils  of  a  large  slave  population  and  had  undertaken  to  restrict  the 
importation  of  negroes  from  Africa ;  but  these  attempts  were 
vetoed  by  the  Crown  on  the  ground  that  it  interfered  with  a  lucra- 
tive trade  in  which  the  Crown  was  pecuniarily  interested  as  a 
stockholder  of  the  Royal  African  Company,  which  had  a  monopoly 
of  supplying  the  American  colonies  with  slaves.  Colonial  gov- 
ernors were  charged  with  furthering  the  interests  of  the  company, 
and  by  1695  the  traffic  in  negroes  was  considered  the  best  and  most 
profitable  branch  of  British  commerce.5  It  is  stated  upon  the  au- 
thority of  a  careful  investigator  that  in  the  twenty  years  from 
1713  to  1733  not  less  than  15.000  slaves  were  annually  imported 
into  America  by  the  English,  of  whom  from  one-third  to  one-half 
went  to  North  American  colonies.  From  1680  to  1688  the  Afri- 
can Company  sent  249  ships  to  Africa  and  carried  away  to  Amer- 
ica 46,396  slaves  after  losing  over  14,000  in  the  middle  passage.6 

It  was  not  until  after  the  achievement  of  independence  that 
the  colonies  were  free  to  adopt  restrictive  measures  against  this 
abominable  traffic.  In  New  England,  where  general  conditions 
were  unfavorable  to  the  growth  of  slavery,  the  number  of  slaves 
was  inconsiderable,  and  being  employed  mainly  as  domestic  serv- 
ants they  were  not  as  a  rule  harshly  treated  and  were  generally 

4  See  "  Census   Bulletin,"  1900,   No.  4. 

r>  Weeden,  "  Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  451. 

eDuP>ois,  "Suppression  of  the   African  Slave  Trade,"  p.  5. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  129 

1606-1776 

instructed  in  the  art  of  reading.  After  the  slave  population  be- 
came relatively  large  as  compared  with  the  white  population,  the 
colonial  assemblies  began  to  pass  drastic  police  regulations  intended 
to  secure  the  obedience  and  good  behavior  of  the  blacks  and  to 
prevent  servile  insurrection.  The  fear  of  slave  outbreaks  was 
never  absent  from  the  mind  of  the  white  man,  and,  indeed,  the 
fear  was  not  without  foundation,  for  as  early  as  1687  an  uprising 
of  rebellious  blacks  occurred  in  northern  Virginia,  creating  great 
terror  and  alarm  among  the  whites.  The  slave  code  in  conse- 
quence was  made  especially  severe  in  Virginia  and  South  Carolina, 
where  the  black  population  was  large;  but  such  laws,  severe  as 
they  may  seem  to  us  now,  were  not  condemned  by  the  public  senti- 
ment of  the  day. 

At  law  the  slave  was  a  mere  chattel  like  any  other  personal 
property,  and  could  be  sold,  hired  or  otherwise  disposed  of  at  the 
pleasure  of  his  master.  He  could  not  leave  the  plantation  without 
a  permit,  under  penalty  of  a  certain  number  of  lashes,  nor  was  he 
allowed  to  carry  arms,  keep  dogs  or  own  property  of  consequence. 
Except  in  rare  instances  he  was  never  taught  to  read  or  write; 
indeed  the  teaching  of  slaves  was  generally  forbidden  by  law.  It 
was  the  undoubted  right  of  the  owner  to  punish  his  slave  for  diso- 
bedience, and  in  case  of  resistance  he  might  take  his  life,  for 
ordinarily  there  could  be  no  "  malice  aforethought  "  in  destroying 
one's  own  property.  However,  the  willful  killing  of  a  slave  was 
treated  as  murder,  in  the  criminal  codes,  but  it  was  not  always 
easy  to  convict  in  such  a  case,  because  a  white  jury  was  loath 
to  return  a  verdict  of  guilty  against  a  white  offender.  Slave  testi- 
mony was  of  course  not  admissible  in  the  courts,  if  either  party 
was  a  white  man. 

Despite  the  severity  of  the  slave  code,  the  unfortunate  blacks 
were  fed  and  clothed,  and  their  health  and  comfort  cared  for; 
everywhere  they  were  allowed  to  own  gardens  and  poultry,  and 
probably,  except  on  some  of  the  large  plantations,  they  were  not 
overworked.  Their  condition  was  much  better  than  in  Africa,  and 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  were  happy  and  contented. 
While  there  was  a  strong  sentiment  against  the  slave  trade,  our 
forefathers  could  see  little  wrong  in  holding  the  ignorant  African  in 
slavery.  It  rather  seemed  to  them  to  be  a  blessing  to  the  slave  that 
he  should  be  cared  for  and  supported  by  the  white  man,  and  given 
the  advantages  of  a  Christian  civilization.     Shiftless  and  improvi- 


130  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

dent,  his  own  welfare  required  the  stimulus  and  the  incentive  of 
the  superior  race.  Contrary  to  this  view,  however,  was  the  senti- 
ment entertained  by  the  Pennsylvania  Quakers,  or  Friends,  as  they 
preferred  to  be  called,  who,  before  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  had  started  an  agitation  against  slavery  on  moral  grounds.7 
Two  of  their  foremost  anti-slavery  agitators  were  Woolman  and 
Benezet,  who  by  their  speeches  and  writings  aroused  among  the 
Friends  a  strong  sentiment  against  slavery  and  led  many  of  them 
to  set  their  negroes  free.8  After  the  Revolution  the  Quaker  hos- 
tility to  slavery  became  more  general  and  they  were  the  first  people 
to  petition  Congress  for  the  enactment  of  legislation  to  restrict  the 
spread  of  the  institution.  In  Massachusetts  an  anti-slavery  senti- 
ment slowly  grew  up,  the  first  anti-slavery  advocate  of  that  colony 
being  the  able  and  well-known  Judge  Samuel  Sewall,  who  as  early 
as  the  year  1700  published  a  pamphlet  attacking  the  institution  of 
slavery  as  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  as  well 
as  contrary  to  the  principles  of  economic  expediency.9 

Next  above  the  slave  in  the  ascending  social  scale  was  the 
class  of  indented  white  servants,  so  called  from  a  written  instru- 
ment called  an  indenture  which  defined  their  obligations  to  their, 
masters.  Superior  to  the  slaves  in  race,  they  were  nevertheless 
an  inferior  class,  consisting  often  of  convicted  criminals  trans- 
ported to  America  by  the  mother  country  and  dumped  upon  the 
colonists,  or  of  voluntary  emigrants  representing  the  idle  and 
worthless  from  the  larger  English  cities.10  Others  were  of  shift- 
less, impoverished  characters  who  sold  themselves  into  servitude 
for  a  term  of  years,  sometimes  as  a  means  of  paying  the  cost  of 
their  passage  across  the  Atlantic.  Still  others  consisted  of  chil- 
dren kidnaped  from  the  streets  of  London  or  sold  by  inhuman 
parents.  Their  legal  and  social  status  was  but  little  better  than 
that  of  the  slaves.  Strict  laws  were  enacted  by  the  colonial  assem- 
blies to  hold  them  in  servitude,  and  they  were  subjected  to  the  same 
degrading  punishments.     They  were  frequently  illiterate,  degraded, 

7  See  Hart,   "  Contemporaries,"  vol.   ii.  p.  291. 

8  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  308. 

9  Weedcn,  "  Economic  and  Social  History  of  New  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  429. 
10 "  American  Historical  Review,"  vol.  ii.  p.  12.  Some  writers  have  esti- 
mated the  number  of  convicted  criminals  sent  to  the  colonies  by  the  British 
Government  at  from  ten  thousand  to  twenty-five  thousand,  most  of  them  being 
sent  to  Maryland  and  the  middle  colonies.  See  Scharf,  "  History  of  Maryland," 
vol.  i.  p.  371. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  131 

1606-1776 

worthless,  often  despised  even  by  the  negroes.  They  were  espe- 
cially numerous  in  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  and  in  the  latter 
colony  exerted  a  deteriorating  influence.  They  were,  it  is  said, 
the  source  of  that  class  of  Southern  society  known  later  as  "  poor 
white  trash." 

Next  in  the  ascending  social  scale  were  the  merchants,  traders, 
shopkeepers  and  small  farmers,  who  constituted,  especially  in  the 
New  England  colonies,  the  substantial  element  of  the  population. 
They  were  of  good  English  stock,  were  socially  respected,  and 
from  their  ranks  a  great  leader  occasionally  rose  by  dint  of  genius 
and  character.  In  some  of  the  southern  colonies,  notably  Virginia 
and  South  Carolina,  this  middle  class  hardly  existed  as  a  distinct 
group.  Here  there  were  only  two  well-defined  classes,  namely, 
large  plantation  owners  and  slaves. 

Finally,  at  the  top  of  the  social  pyramid  was  the  aristocratic 
class,  which  in  all  the  colonies  was  well  differentiated  from  the 
lower  classes.  In  New  England  this  class  consisted  of  the  clergy, 
the  magistrates,  the  professional  men  and  those  who  were  "  well- 
born." Here  the  aristocracy  was  more  largely  official  than  else- 
where, and  was  based  on  education  and  birth  rather  than  on  wealth. 
Although  politically  New  England  was  the  home  of  democracy, 
socially  class  distinctions  were  very  sharp,  and  matters  of  social 
precedence  were  much  more  important  than  now.  Until  late  in 
the  eighteenth  century  the  people  were  carefully  seated  in  the 
churches  according  to  social  standing,  while  the  names  of  Harvard 
students  were  arranged  in  the  catalogue  according  to  a  similar 
method.11  While  substantially  all  the  offices  were  open  to  the 
middle  classes,  the  more  important  ones  were  reserved  for  the  aris- 
tocrats of  education,  good  birth  and  distinguished  ancestry. 

In  the  southern  colonies  the  upper  class  consisted  of  the  wealthy 
planters  and  large  land  holders.  They  occupied  much  the  same 
position  as  the  landed  gentry  in  England;  indeed,  the  Virginia 
planter  had  much  in  common,  as  regards  his  dress,  manners  and 
habits,  with  the  English  landlord.  Surrounded  by  their  slaves 
they  lived  like  lords,  on  great  plantations  which  sometimes  extended 
for  miles  along  the  river  banks.  Not  infrequently  Virginia  plant- 
ers had  their  own  wharfs,  at  which  vessels  from  the  Old  World 
arrived  and  departed   at  irregular  intervals.     They  were  of  the 

11  Weeden,   "  Economic   and  Social  History  of  New   England,"  vol.  i.  pp. 
280.  289,  417. 


132  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

best  English  stock  and  possessed  the  virtues  as  well  as  the  faults 
common  to  landed  aristocracies.  With  a  high  sense  of  honor, 
chivalrous,  hospitable  and  proud,  they  held  the  chief  offices  of  state, 
and  in  the  struggle  for  independence  furnished  a  large  number 
of  able  leaders  to  the  patriotic  cause.  It  was  from  this  aristocracy 
that  the  new  Republic  drew  four  of  its  first  five  Presidents,  and 
a  good  many  of  its  other  leading  statesmen  and  diplomats. 

In  the  middle  colonies,  as  in  New  England  and  the  southern 
colonies,  the  differentiation  of  society  into  classes  was  clearly 
marked.  In  New  York  the  existence  of  the  patroon  system  gave 
society  something  of  a  feudal  cast.  The  patroons  owned  vast 
estates  along  the  Hudson  and  lived  after  the  manner  of  feudal 
barons  in  spacious  mansions  built  of  imported  brick  or  stone,  and 
handsomely  decorated  and  furnished.  Notable  families  of  this 
class  were  the  Van  Rensselaers,  the  Van  Cortlandts,  the  Living- 
stons and  the  Schuylers,  all  prominent  leaders  in  the  political  and 
social  affairs  of  the  colony.  Their  estates  were  cultivated  by  ten- 
ants, who  looked  to  the  patroon  for  protection  and  justice  and 
who  paid  him  rent  at  stated  periods,  patronized  his  grist  mill  and 
wine  press  and  performed  various  semi-feudal  services.  The  pro- 
prietor regularly  held  manorial  courts  and  at  stated  intervals  gave 
his  tenants  a  great  feast  at  the  mansion.  The  most  famous  of 
these  estates  was  that  of  Stephen  Van  Rensselaer,  who  owned 
600,000  acres  of  land  in  the  neighborhood  of  Albany.12 

Below  the  aristocratic  class  in  New  York  were  the  small  land 
owners  and  tradesmen,  a  thrifty  and  well-to-do  element  of  both 
Dutch  and  English  stock.  Then  there  were  some  20,000  slaves, 
largely  a  remnant  of  Dutch  occupation,  and  comprising  about  one- 
sixth  of  the  population.  Their  status  was  substantially  the  same 
as  the  slaves  in  the  southern  colonies.  A  threatened  slave  insur- 
rection in  New  York  City  in  171 1  led  to  a  massacre  by  the  whites 
of  nineteen  negroes,  and  again,  in  1741,  in  consequence  of  what  was 
known  as  the  "  Negro  Plot  "  formed  to  burn  the  city,  a  number  of 
the  blacks  were  seized  and  twenty-one  of  them  were  put  to  death 
after  trial,  some  by  hanging,  others  by  burning,  and  still  others  by 
breaking  on  the  wheel.13 

In  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  class  distinctions 
were  less  sharply  drawn  than  in  either  New  York,  New  England 

12  Fiske,  "  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.   i.   pp.   265-269. 

13  Lodge,  "Short  History  of  the  English  Colonies,"  p.  322. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  133 

1606-1776 

or  in  the  southern  colonies.  So  far  as  there  was  an  aristocratic 
class  in  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  it  was  made  up  of  the  descend- 
ants of  Penn's  principal  followers  and  of  the  landed  gentry;  but  it 
was  not  homogeneous  and  compact,  nor  was  it  separated  from  the 
middle  class  by  the  same  impassible  barriers  which  existed  else- 
where.14 

The  distinctive  feature  of  Pennsylvania  society  was  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Quaker  element,  with  their  quaint  habits  of  dress  and 
peculiar  customs.  Racially  and  religiously  there  was  unusual  di- 
versity. Besides  English,  there  were  Germans  and  Irish  in  large 
numbers,  Scotch-Irish,  Welsh  and  Swedes,  while  Lutherans,  Pres- 
byterians, Dunkards,  Dutch  Calvinists,  Moravians,  Baptists  and 
Roman  Catholics  were  some  of  the  religious  sects  which  played 
an  important  part  in  the  life  of  the  colony.15  Naturally  there  was 
friction  and  some  strife  where  so  much  racial  and  religious  diversity 
existed.  The  Germans  and  Scotch-Irish  could  not  live  harmoni- 
ously together  in  the  same  community,  nor  were  the  Quakers  and 
Scotch-Irish  ever  on  good  terms  in  political  matters.  Slaves  there 
were  in  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey  and  Delaware,  but  their  number 
was  not  large,  probably  not  exceeding  one-fourth  of  the  entire 
population,10  and  the  practice  of  slave-holding  was  discountenanced 
by  the  unwavering  hostility  of  the  Quakers.  Much  more  numer- 
ous was  the  class  of  indented  servants,  which  consisted  mainly 
of  Irish  and  German  redemptioners  who  sold  themselves  to  pay 
their  passage,  or  of  transported  convicts. 

II 

INDUSTRIES,    OCCUPATIONS   AND    PROFESSIONS. 

The  occupations  and  professions  of  the  colonists  were  much 
more  lacking  in  variety  than  at  the  present  day.  The  most  general 
of  the  occupations  was  agriculture.  At  first  the  chief  in- 
dustry in  the  New  England  colonies,  it  gradually  declined  in 
relative  importance  on  account  of  the  inaptibility  of  the  soil  and 
climate.  Here  the  soil  was  rugged  and  barren,  while  the  seasons 
were  too  short  to  grow  the  great  staples  that  were  raised  with 

14  Lodge,  "  Short  History  of  the  English  Colonies,"  p.  240. 

15  Read  Fiske,  "  Dutch  and  Quaker  Colonies,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  xvii. 
1G  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  391. 


134  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

profit  in  the  more  southerly  latitudes.  Nevertheless,  grain  was 
raised  in  considerable  quantities  for  export,  mainly  to  Europe  and 
the  West  Indies.  Stock-raising  was  also  an  important  industry 
and  large  quantities  of  cattle  were  likewise  exported  to  the  West 
Indies.  Of  scarcely  less  value  was  the  trade  in  furs  and  peltries 
with  the  Indians.  As  the  unsuitability  of  the  country  for  agri- 
culture became  more  and  more  apparent,  the  people  turned  their 
attention  to  manufacturing  and  maritime  industries.  At  first 
manufacturing  was  conducted  on  a  small  scale,  the  articles  produced 
being  chiefly  textile  fabrics,  iron,  nails,  shoes,  and  similar  articles 
intended  for  domestic  use.  The  setting  up  of  slitting  mills  being 
forbidden  by  act  of  Parliament,  the  iron  industry  was  greatly 
handicapped. 

It  was  not  until  after  the  Revolution  that  the  present  suprem- 
acy of  New  England  as  a  manufacturing  section  began.  Lumber 
and  grist  mills  were  common,  linens  and  coarse  woolens  were 
made,  particularly  by  the  Scotch-Irish  of  New  Hampshire  and 
Massachusetts,  while  hats  and  paper  in  small  quantities  were  manu- 
factured in  various  places.  Fishing,  shipbuilding  and  commerce 
became  the  most  important  of  New  England  industries.17  The 
fishery  industry  in  particular  afforded  an  occupation  for  thousands 
of  bold  and  hardy  men  who  braved  the  rough  weather  and  perilous 
seas  to  make  voyages  to  Newfoundland,  Labrador  and  other  places 
in  pursuit  of  cod,  whale  and  mackerel.  As  early  as  1750  there 
were  employed  in  the  mackerel  fishery  and  other  small  catch  for 
the  West  Indian  market  200  vessels ;  in  cod  fishing,  400  vessels,  and 
in  the  pursuit  of  whales  on  the  North  American  coast,  100  ves- 
sels.18 

In  1764  New  England  employed  45,880  tons  of  shipping  and 
6,000  men  in  the  cod  fishing  industry,  and  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolution  Nantucket  alone  had  150  vessels  of  15,000  tons  em- 
ployed in  the  various  fisheries.  The  output  of  the  whale  fishery 
was  45,000  barrels  of  sperm,  8,500  barrels  of  oil  and  7,500  pounds 
of  bone.19  It  was  the  fishery  industry  which  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  greatness  of  Massachusetts,  and  it  has  continued  to  this  day 
to  be  one  of  the  sources  of  the  industrial  strength  of  this  pro- 
gressive commonwealth. 

17  Wecden,  "Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  115. 

18  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  359-360. 
™  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  748. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  135 

1606-1776 

Very  soon  after  the  planting  of  the  New  England  colonies 
shipbuilding  on  a  small  scale  was  begun,  the  coasting  trade  was 
presently  monopolized  by  New  England  vessels,  and  at  the  time 
of  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  an  extensive  and  profitable  com- 
merce with  the  West  Indies  and  with  Europe  was  being  carried 
on  mainly  by  ships  built  in  New  England  yards.  Dried  fish,  beef, 
pork,  oil,  lumber,  staves,  hay,  grain  and  cattle  and  horses  were 
carried  to  the  West  Indies,  and  exchanged  for  sugar,  molasses, 
coffee,  cotton,  salt  and  other  tropical  products. 

By  the  British  Sugar  Act,  passed  in  1733,  the  American  col- 
onies were  practically  forbidden  to  trade  with  any  of  the  West 
Indies  not  under  British  control,  but  the  act  was  systematically 
evaded  by  the  colonists.  Thus,  in  1763,  of  the  15,000  hogsheads 
of  molasses  which  were  imported  into  Massachusetts  from  the  West 
Indies,  only  500  came  from  the  British  Islands.20  Rhode  Island 
brought  in  14,000  hogsheads  in  one  year,  only  2,500  of  which 
were  imported  in  conformity  to  the  law.21  The  molasses  thus 
imported  was  not  infrequently  taken  to  New  England,  converted 
into  rum,  which  in  turn  was  shipped  to  Newfoundland,  along  with 
tar  and  provisions,  and  exchanged  for  fish.  The  latter  article  was 
carried  to  southern  Europe  to  supply  the  large  Catholic  demand, 
and  exchanged  for  goods  needed  in  America.  A  common  practice 
also  was  to  ship  cargoes  of  rum  to  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  where 
it  was  easily  exchanged  for  slaves,  and  these  were  brought  to 
America  and  sold  to  the  Southern  planters  or  carried  to  the  West 
Indies  and  exchanged  for  more  rum.  In  1750  Massachusetts  could 
boast  of  sixty-three  distilleries,  while  Rhode  Island  had  thirty. 
Of  all  the  articles  of  colonial  traffic  rum  was  the  most  important. 
Negroes,  fish,  lumber,  vessels,  all  felt  the  impulse  of  its  power. 
It  was  merchandise  on  the  coast  of  Guinea,  as  well  as  on  the  banks 
of  Newfoundland,  and  furnished  cargoes  for  about  900  vessels. 
Newport,  Rhode  Island,  became  the  chief  center  of  the  rum-dis- 
tilling, negro-importing  business.  It  was  the  port  of  clearance 
for  hundreds  of  vessels  bound  for  the  West  Indies  or  for  the  Gold 
Coast.  From  a  port  of  the  third-class  it  rapidly  grew  to  rival 
Boston.  Governor  Stephen  Hopkins,  one  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  stated  that  for  more  than  thirty  years 
prior  to   1764  Rhode  Island  sent  to  Africa  every  year  eighteen 

20  Weeden,  "  Social  and  Economic  History  of  New  England,"  vol.  ii.  p.  754. 

21  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  756. 


136  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

vessels  carrying  1,800  hogsheads  of  rum,  which  was  exchanged 
for  slaves.  This  article  by  reason  of  its  cheapness  completely  dis- 
placed French  brandies  in  the  Gold  Coast  traffic,  and  gave  the 
Americans,  the  advantage  in  the  slave  trade.  Among  those  who 
engaged  in  the  African  traffic  was  Peter  Faneuil,  the  builder  of 
Faneuil  Hall,  Boston. 

In  the  middle  colonies  agriculture  was  the  chief  industry,  ex- 
cept in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  where  the  traffic  in  furs  and 
peltries  was  of  considerable  importance.  The  soil  was  better 
adapted  for  farming  in  these  colonies,  and  consequently  agriculture 
was  carried  on  with  more  success  and  profit  than  in  New  England. 
The  principal  staple  was  wheat,  while  cattle  and  other  live-stock 
were  raised  in  considerable  quantities  for  export  to  England  and 
the  West  Indies.  In  New  York  the  most  profitable  industry  was 
the  traffic  with  the  Indians  in  furs  and  peltries.  Shrewd  and  ad- 
venturous traders,  supplied  with  trinkets,  novelties,  firearms  and 
rum,  met  the  Indians  at  Albany  and  exchanged  their  cheap  wares 
for  valuable  furs,  which  were  in  turn  sold  in  Manhattan  at  a  large 
profit. 

The  town  of  New  York  soon  became  an  important  center  of 
trade  and  commerce,  although  it  was  not  until  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury that  it  passed  Philadelphia  and  Boston  in  population  and 
importance.  Before  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  the  iron  in- 
dustry, which  was  subsequently  to  become  a  source  of  enormous 
wealth  to  Pennsylvania,  had  already  made  a  beginning,  although 
it  was  greatly  hampered  by  the  restrictive  trade  acts  of  the  mother 
country.  The  first  iron  furnace  was  set  up  in  1720  and  by  1750 
the  annual  export  of  pig  iron  amounted  to  3,000  tons.22 

In  the  southern  colonies  agriculture  was  almost  the  only  occu- 
pation of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  great  staples  were  tobacco,  rice 
and  indigo.  Cotton  was  raised  in  small  quantities,  but  the  grow- 
ing of  this  plant  did  not  become  an  important  industry  until  after 
the  invention  of  the  cotton  gin.  The  economic  wealth  of  Virginia 
lay  in  the  tobacco  industry.  The  colony  was  dotted  with  great 
plantations  devoted  almost  exclusively  to  the  cultivation  of  this  one 
crop.  On  account  of  its  importance  in  the  economic  life  of  the 
colony  it  was  for  a  time  used  as  currency  for  the  payment  of  sal- 
aries and  taxes  and  the  purchase  of  supplies,  while  its  cultivation 
was  carefully  supervised  and   regulated  by  the  government.     No 

--Lodge,  "Short  History  of  the  English   Colonies,"  p.  230. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  137 

1606-1776 

community  was  probably  ever  so  completely  absorbed  in  the  pro- 
duction of  any  one  article.  It  was  the  chief  subject  of  export,  and 
in  many  cases  the  vessels  which  carried  it  to  Europe  came  directly 
to  the  wharf  of  the  planter  where  the  cargo  was  taken  aboard. 
The  profits  were  large  and  the  desire  to  extend  the  acreage  created 
a  demand  for  more  slaves.  By  the  time  of  the  Revolution  not  less 
than  100.000  hogsheads,  valued  at  a  million  pounds  sterling,  and 
requiring  about  300  vessels  for  their  transport,  were  being  annually 
exported  from  this  colony.23 

Its  importance  at  the  time  was  illustrated  by  an  incident  that 
occurred  on  the  occasion  of  the  visit  of  a  delegation  of  Virginians 
to  London  in  1692  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  aid  for  William 
and  Mary  College.  Addressing  the  attorney-general,  the  spokes- 
man of  the  delegation  called  attention  to  the  influence  a  college  for 
the  higher  education  of  the  people  might  exert  in  the  saving  of 
souls.  To  this  allusion  the  attorney-general  bluntly  replied, 
"  Souls !  damn  your  souls,  raise  tobacco !  "  In  South  Carolina  the 
cultivation  of  rice  was  at  first  the  chief  industry  of  the  people. 
This  grain  was  introduced  near  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
and  by  the  middle  of  the  following  century  it  occupied  almost  the 
same  place  in  the  economic  and  industrial  life  of  the  colony  as  did 
tobacco  in  Virginia.  In  1770  the  lieutenant-governor  reported  to 
the  English  Board  of  Trade  that  about  3.000  wagons  came  to 
Charleston  in  one  year  from  the  back  country  loaded  with  this 
product.  A  calculation  made  in  1768  placed  the  total  value  of 
rice  produced  in  the  colony  at  £50o,ooo.24  At  first  exceedingly 
profitable,  it  gradually  became  less  so,  and  was  superseded  in  a 
large  measure  by  the  cultivation  of  indigo.  The  cultivation  of 
this  latter  plant  was  the  chief  industry  of  South  Carolina  at  the 
time  of  the  Revolution,  although  the  cultivation  of  cotton  was 
rapidly  becoming  a  close  rival.  In  North  Carolina  lumber  and 
naval  stores,  such  as  tar,  pitch  and  turpentine,  were  produced 
largely  for  export  to  New  England  and  to  Europe,  while  in  all 
the  southern  colonies  live  stock  and  cereals  were  raised  in  large 
quantities,  also  for  the  foreign  trade. 

Manufactures  did  not  flourish  in  the  southern  colonies,  for 
the  people  found  it  more  profitable  to  raise  the  great  staples  and 
purchase  their  necessary  articles  of  manufacture  from  New  Eng- 

23  Lodge,   "  Short  History  of  the   English   Colonies,"  p.  65. 

24  McCrady,  "  South  Carolina  under  the  Royal  Government,"  pp.  3S8-391. 


138  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

land  or  the  mother  country.  Furthermore,  it  soon  became  evident 
that  an  industrial  system  founded  on  slave  labor  was  ill  adapted  to 
the  growth  of  manufacturing,  and  so  the  South  continued  through- 
out the  colonial  period,  and  indeed  until  very  recently,  an  almost 
exclusively  agricultural  section. 

The  learned  professions  were  comparatively  few  in  all  the 
colonies  and  played  a  subordinate  part  in  the  intellectual  and 
economic  life  of  the  times.  The  practice  of  law  as  a  learned  pro- 
fession hardly  existed,  and  lawyers  were  generally  looked  upon 
with  suspicion.25  Litigation  was  rather  small  in  amount,  retainers 
were  not  large,  and  the  opportunities  for  distinction  few.  Con- 
sequently the  bar  did  not  attract  the  best  classes  of  young  men. 
Barristers  there  were  in  abundance,  but  they  were  frequently  sharp- 
ers, pettifoggers  or  adventurers  from  London,  and  were  largely 
lacking  in  that  sense  of  professional  honor  which  is  the  pride  of 
the  American  bar  to-day.  The  qualifications  for  admission  to 
the  bar  were  few;  in  fact  laymen  were  frequently  allowed 
to  act  as  attorneys,  and  the  opportunities  and  facilities  for  the 
study  of  law  were  meager.  At  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth 
century  lawyers  were  so  few  that  even  the  most  important  judicial 
positions  were  often  filled  by  men  without  specific  legal  training, 
and  this  was  true  in  the  southern  and  middle  colonies  as  well  as  in 
New  England.26  Before  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution,  how- 
ever, there  had  come  a  great  improvement  in  the  character  of 
the  bar.  Men  of  high  position  and  talents,  college  graduates  and 
ambitious  young  men  generally,  turned  to  the  legal  profession  as 
affording  the  best  opportunity  for  careers  of  honorable  distinction. 
Especially  in  Philadelphia  did  the  bar  attain  a  position  of  respecta- 
bility and  influence,  and  the  saying,  "  Smart  as  a  Philadelphia 
lawyer,"  was  a  popular  aphorism  that  has  come  down  to  the  present 
day.  It  was  a  Philadelphian,  Andrew  Hamilton,  who  rose  to  the 
leadership  of  the  colonial  bar,  his  reputation  as  a  barrister  even 
extending  to  Europe.  In  Virginia,  Patrick  Henry,  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson, George  Wythe  and  John  Marshall  were  already  laying  the 
foundations  of  those  remarkable  careers  which  were  to  add  dignity 
and  prestige  to  the  legal  profession. 

2:<  Osgood,  "  The  American  Colonies  in  the.  Seventeenth  Centnry,"  vol.  ii. 
p.  434;  Lodge,  "Short  History  of  English  Colonies,"  p.  53;  see  alsc  McCrady, 
"  South  Carolina  Under  the  Royal  Government,"  p.  459. 

-,;  Greene.  "  Provincial   America,"  p.  317. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  139 

1606-1776 

The  medical'  profession  was  in  but  little  better  repute  at  this 
time  than  that  of  the  law.  The  practice  of  medicine  was  in  the 
crudest  state.  Quacks  and  impostors  were  numerous,  and  nos- 
trums were  a  common  reliance.  Medical  knowledge  was  scant, 
surgical  skill  almost  unknown  and  medicinal  drugs  few.  Prepa- 
rations made  from  bark  and  herbs  sufficed  for  ordinary  ills,  while 
generous  bleeding  was  supposed  to  be  the  first  remedy  for  the  worst 
cases. 

The  methods  of  treatment  were  often  barbarous;  besides  cup- 
ping and  leeching,  the  patient  was  subjected  to  other  torments 
believed  to  be  efficacious.  Water  was  denied  the  victim  tormented 
with  fever,  and  in  its  stead  small  quantities  of  clam-juice  were  given. 
Inoculation  was  practically  unknown  until  well  on  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  on  account  of  the  prevalent  superstition  it  was 
not  frequently  resorted  to  until  much  later.  Hardly  one  of  the 
many  remedies  now  in  general  use  for  assuaging  pain  and  destroy- 
ing diseases  were  then  known.27 

In  New  England  the  most  influential  and  respectable  profes- 
sion was  that  of  the  ministry.  The  clergy  were  usually  men  of 
high  education;  almost  without  exception  they  were  universit}' 
graduates,  and  many  of  them  could  read  the  Bible  in  Hebrew  or 
Greek  and  expound  it  in  Latin.  They  exercised  a  predominant 
influence  in  political  affairs,  directed  public  policy  to  a  large  extent, 
secured  the  passage  of  such  laws  as  they  desired,  and  were  fre- 
quently consulted  by  the  magistrates,  by  whom  their  advice  was 
usually  followed.  They  were  held  in  great  affection  and  esteem  by 
all  classes,  and  were  looked  upon  as  oracles  of  wisdom.  The  most 
powerful  New  England  preacher  of  the  eighteenth  century  was 
Jonathan  Edwards,  whose  work,  entitled  "Freedom  of  the  Will," 
is  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  productions  of  colonial  literature. 
Other  notable  divines  were  Thomas  Hooker,  Increase  Mather,  Cot- 
ton Mather,  John  Cotton,  Samuel  Willard  and  Mather  Byles. 

Ill 

EDUCATION,    LITERATURE   AND    PRINTING 

In  all  the  colonies  education  facilities  were  poor.  In  New 
England  apparently  the  need  of  education  was  most  highly  appre- 

27  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  30. 


140  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

dated,  and  the  means  of  instruction  first  supplied  in  1635.  Four 
years  after  the  founding  of  Boston  the  town  meeting-  voted  to  es- 
tablish a  school  with  Philemen  Parmount  as  teacher,28  and  in  the 
following  year  Harvard  College  was  founded.  It  received  its 
name  from  the  Rev.  John  Harvard,  who  bequeathed  one-half  his 
property  and  his  entire  library  of  400  volumes  to  the  institution.29 
Antedating  Harvard  College  by  two  years  was  the  famous  Boston 
Latin  School,  largely  due  to  the  Rev.  John  Cotton.  In  1647  tne 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts  directed  that  a  common  school  be 
established  in  every  township  containing  fifty  families,  and  a  gram- 
mar school  in  the  larger  towns.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the 
excellent  system  of  public  schools  which  has  ever  been  the  pride 
of  the  people  of  this  noble  commonwealth.  Connecticut  and  New 
Hampshire  were  hardly  behind  Massachusetts  in  educational 
growth,  although  in  Rhode  Island  progress  was  poor  in  spite  of 
legislation.30  In  all  these  colonies  private  schools  were  early  estab- 
lished, public  school  systems  soon  followed,  and  compulsory  attend- 
ance was  ultimately  adopted  in  all,  if  poorly  enforced  in  practice. 

In  1 70 1  Yale  College,  the  second  institution  of  the  kind  in 
New  England,  was  founded  at  New  Haven,  taking  its  name  from 
Elihu  Yale,  a  man  of  Boston  birth  who  lived  most  of  his  life  in 
England,  and  who  made  various  bequests  of  small  amount  to  the 
young  institution.  Brown  University  in  Rhode  Island  was  founded 
in  1764,  and  Dartmouth  in  New  Hampshire  in  1770.  In  the  Mid- 
dle States  the  interest  in  education  was  fair,  though  the  public  school 
facilities  did  not  compare  in  excellence  with  those  of  New  Eng- 
land. In  1633  a  school  was  opened  by  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 
at  New  Amsterdam,  which  was  apparently  the  first  school  opened 
in  the  colonies,  and  its  lineal  descendant  is  still  in  existence.  Many 
other  schools  were  established  by  the  burghers  for  their  children, 
and  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  a  high  rate  of  intelligence  pre- 
vailed among  these  sturdy  settlers.  Under  English  occupation 
even  more  progress  was  made.  In  1754  King's  College  was  estab- 
lished in  New  York,  with  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  as  president  and 
sole  teacher.  After  the  Revolution  it  was  rechristened  Columbia 
College,  and  numbered  among  its  early  graduates  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton, John  Jay  and  Gouverneur  Morris.     Before  the  Revolution, 

28  Howard.   "Local    Constitutional   History,"   p.  67. 

20  Dexter,  "History  of  Education  in  the  United  States,"  p.  226. 

30  Channing,    "History   of    the    United    States,"    vol.    i.    p.    433. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  141 

1606-1776 

New  Jersey,  although  a  small  colony,  could  boast  of  two  colleges, 
Princeton,  founded  in  1746,  and  Rutgers,  founded  about  twenty 
years  later. 

A  noteworthy  educational  institution  in  Pennsylvania  was  the 
Academy  of  Pennsylvania,  founded  mainly  through  the  efforts  of 
Benjamin  Franklin,  in  1749,  and  which  subsequently  grew  into 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  In  1765  the  University  estab- 
lished a  medical  school,  the  first  institution  of  the  kind  in  the  col- 
onies. In  the  southern  colonies,  for  various  reasons,  public  edu- 
cation did  not  make  much  headway.  Here  the  plantation  system 
prevailed,  towns  and  villages  were  few,  and  the  democratic  spirit 
which  lies  az  the  basis  of  the  public  school  system  was  largely 
lacking,  although  in  Virginia  the  vestry  was  charged  with  seeing 
that  all  poor  children  were  taught  to  read  and  write,  and  in  prac- 
tice every  minister  maintained  a  school.31  Situated  far  apart  as 
the  planters  were,  schools  of  any  kind  were  maintained  with  diffi- 
culty. Most  of  the  wealthier  families  employed  private  tutors  to 
instruct  their  sons,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Washington  family, 
while  some  of  them  sent  their  sons  to  London  to  study  at  the  Tem- 
ple, or  to  Oxford,  Edinburgh  or  Cambridge.  Colleges  and  uni- 
versities were  few  in  the  southern  colonies,  yet  it  is  a  noteworthy 
fact  that  the  second  college  to  be  established  in  America  was  in 
Virginia.  This  was  the  College  of  William  and  Mary,  founded 
in  1692,  largely  through  the  efforts  of  the  Rev.  James  Blair,  who 
was  sent  to  London  to  solicit  aid,  and  who  succeeded  in  securing 
a  charter  from  William  and  Mary,  together  with  a  grant  of  £2,000 
"  out  of  the  rents  "  for  the  erection  of  buildings.32 

The  college  had  a  president  and  six  poorly-paid  professors  and 
a  library  of  3.000  volumes,  which  was  considered  a  large  one  for 
that  day.  This  college  alone  of  the  higher  colonial  educational 
institutions  has  been  unable  to  hold  its  own  with  its  contemporaries, 
so  far  as  number  of  students  is  concerned.  During  the  eighteenth 
century  it  declined,  and  by  the  time  of  the  Revolution  it  was  little 
more  than  a  grammar  school.  Nevertheless  its  contribution  of 
distinguished  men  to  the  cause  of  American  independence  was 
probably  unequaled  by  that  of  any  other  college.  Five  of  the  sign- 
ers of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  sixteen  members  of 

31  L.  G.  Tyler,  "England  in  America,"  p.  116. 

32  Dexter,  "History  of  Education,"  p.  324;  Greene,  "Provincial  America," 
ch.  xviii. 


142  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

the  Continental  Congress  were  among  its  alumni.  Of  these  may 
be  mentioned  Peyton  Randolph,  Thomas  Jefferson,  James  Monroe 
and  John  Marshall. 

In  all  the  colleges  of  the  time  the  courses  of  study  were 
narrow,  being  limited  chiefly  to  Greek,  Latin,  metaphysics,  logic, 
and  theology;  the  facilities  of  instruction,  such  as  are  afforded 
by  the  modern  library,  laboratory,  and  museum,  were  almost 
wholly  lacking,  and  the  attendance  was  distressingly  small.  From 
all,  women  were  excluded,  while  the  conditions  of  life  were  such 
that  few  aside  from  the  sons  of  the  well-to-do  were  able  to  enjoy 
the  meager  opportunities  thus  offered.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that 
some  of  these  colleges  were  either  founded  or  supported  by  lot- 
teries, and  that  the  chief  purpose  of  most  of  them  was  to  train 
young  men  for  the  ministry.  So  far  as  the  standard  of  their 
curricula  was  concerned,  hardly  any  of  them  were  more  than  acad- 
emies. 

In  literature  and  arts,  as  in  education,  New  England  took  the 
lead  among  the  colonies,  although  there  even  here  was  little  to 
excite  pride.  Before  the  Revolution  the  literature  of  New  Eng- 
land belonged  to  two  classes,  namely,  chronicles  and  theological 
writings.  The  former  were  marked  by  a  spirit  of  partisanship 
and  want  of  critical  style,  while  the  latter  consisted  mostly  of  ser- 
mons, controversial  treatises  and  polemical  essays,  usually  ponder- 
ous with  metaphysical  abstractions  and  dogmas.  In  New  Eng- 
land nearly  all  the  writers  of  note  were  theologians.  Of  these, 
Jonathan  Edwards  was  the  most  powerful.  His  writings  were 
characterized  by  a  force  of  style  and  a  profundity  of  thought  which 
placed  him  among  the  greatest  thinkers  of  this  time.  Other 
American  writers  of  note  were  Hugh  Peters,  afterwards  chaplain 
to  Oliver  Cromwell ;  Roger  Williams,  whose  most  important  work, 
"  Bloody  Tenent  of  Persecution"  appeared  in  1644;  John  Cotton, 
who  wrote  in  reply  to  Williams's  treatise,  "  The  Bloody  Tenent 
washed  and  made  white  in  the  Blood  of  the  Lamb " ;  William 
Bradford,  author  of  a  "  History  of  Plymouth " ;  John  Wm- 
throp,  author  of  a  "  History  of  New  England " ;  Cotton, 
Mather,  author  of  the  "  Magnalia,"  an  ecclesiastical  history  of 
New  England  from  1620  to  1698;  and  Benjamin  Franklin,  whose 
autobiography  and  "  Poor  Richard's  Almanack,"  are  works  of  a 
high  order,  which,  with  his  scientific  achievements,  won  him  the 
distinction    abroad   of  being  the   best   known    American.     Frank- 


COLONIAL     LIFE  143 

1606-1776 

lin's  autobiography  was  the  most  widely  current  book  in  our  co- 
lonial literature,  while  "  Poor  Richard's  Almanack,"  first  begun 
in  1732,  continued  for  twenty-five  years,  and  had  an  annual  cir- 
culation of  ten  thousand  copies.33  It  was  replete  with  proverbial 
sayings  told  in  prose  and  verse  and  inculcated  the  virtues  of  in- 
dustry, honesty,  and  frugality.  A  writer  who  exercised  a  powerful 
influence  during  the  Revolutionary  period  was  Thomas  Paine,  who 
published,  anonymously,  at  Philadelphia,  in  January,  1776,  a  pam- 
phlet entitled  "  Common  Sense,"  which  was  a  series  of  essays  advo- 
cating the  independence  of  the  colonies  and  the  establishment  of  a- 
republic.34  It  was  followed  in  December  by  the  "  Crisis,"  which 
began  with  the  famous  saying :  "  These  are  the  times  that  try 
men's  souls."  Full  of  crudities  of  thought  and  superficiality, 
"  Common  Sense  "  was  withal  a  masterly  pamphlet,  and  it  was 
eagerly  read  and  rapidly  went  through  many  editions.  It  con- 
vinced multitudes  of  wavering  patriots  that  the  true  interest  of  the 
colonies  required  their  immediate  separation  from  Great  Britain.35 

Outside  of  New  England  and  Pennsylvania,  however,  there 
was  little  written  which  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  literature  if  we 
except  some  attempts  at  historical  writing  in  Virginia  by  a  clergy- 
man named  William  Stith,  and  by  Robert  Beverly,  and  the  really 
amusing  diary  of  Colonel  William  Byrd.  Stith  and  Beverly  wrote 
histories  of  the  Virginia  colony,  while  Colonel  Byrd  left  his  me- 
moirs, including  an  account  of  his  experiences  as  a  commissioner 
for  running  the  boundary  line  between  North  Carolina  and  Vir- 
ginia. The  latter  is  replete  with  wit  and  humor,  shows  power  of 
keen  observation,  and  is  by  no  means  lacking  in  literary  merit.36 

The  first  printing  press  in  the  colonies  was  set  up  at  Cam- 
briage  in  1639,  and  in  the  following  year  the  first  book  ever  printed 
in  America  was  issued  from  it.  This  was  the  "  Bay  Psalm  Book," 
a  collection  of  psalms  made  by  various  ministers,  one  of  whom, 
John  Eliot,  translated  the  Bible  into  the  Algonquin  tongue  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Indians.  There  were  no  printing  presses  in  Virginia 
until  1729,  and  Governor  Berkeley  thanked  God  in  1671  for  it,  as 
"  printing  presses,"  he  said,  "  bring  heresies  in  the  world  and  libel 

33  Beers,  "  Studies  in  American  Letters,"  p.  39. 

34  Conway,  "  Writings  of  Paine,"  pp.  67-169. 

35  M.  C.  Tyler,  "  Literary  History  of  the  American  Revolution,"  vol.   i.  p. 

474 
30  See    Bassett,    "  Writings    of   William    Byrd." 


144  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

the  best  government  that  the  world  ever  saw."  37  The  early  print- 
ing press  was,  of  course,  a  crude  and  cumbersome  affair,  was 
worked  by  hand  and  had  a  capacity  of  hardly  more  than  a  hundred 
tiny  sheets  per  hour.  Few  of  our  early  inventions  afford  greater 
objects  of  curiosity  to-day  than  the  printing  press  of  Benjamin 
Franklin's  time. 

Newspapers  were  few  and  of  the  very  poorest  kind.  Ordi- 
narily they  were  but  a  few  times  larger  than  a  man's  hand  in  size, 
were  printed  on  coarse  paper,  and  seldom  circulated  more  than 
fifty  miles  beyond  the  place  where  they  were  printed.  Their  small 
columns  were  often  filled  with  essays  on  politics,  morals,  religion 
or  metaphysics,  by  writers  who  signed  themselves  Cincinnatus, 
Cicero,  or  some  other  classical  name.  There  were  no  editorials, 
and  the  little  news  from  abroad  was  forgotten  in  the  Old  World 
ere  it  crossed  the  Atlantic.  Their  small  columns  were  often  filled 
with  quaint  advertisements  of  runaway  slaves  or  servants,  or  with 
extracts  from  some  standard  history.  For  lack  of  news  a  Boston 
paper  published  Robertson's  "  History  of  America  "  as  a  serial, 
while  another  reprinted  Cook's  "  Voyages."  3S  Not  infrequently 
"  broadsides,"  or  extra  sheets,  were  printed  on  eventful  occasions 
and  sold  on  the  streets.  The  first  newspaper  published  in  the 
colonies  was  the  Boston  Nezvs  Letter,  founded  in  1704,  and  which 
fifteen  years  later  was  flourishing  with  a  circulation  of  300  copies.39 
The  first  newspaper  founded  in  the  south  was  the  Virginia  Gazette, 
started  in  1736,  and  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  there  were 
thirty-seven  newspapers  in  circulation  in  the  thirteen  colonies.  Of 
these  fourteen  were  in  New  England,  four  in  New  York,  and  nine 
in  Pennsylvania;  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  had  two  each, 
Georgia  one,  South  Carolina  three.  The  contents  of  the  whole 
thirty-seven  would  scarcely  fill  a  dozen  pages  in  a  single  one  of 
our  modern  dailies,  and  their  combined  circulation  did  not  exceed 
a  few  thousand  copies.  Not  one  of  them  was  a  daily,  and,  as  for 
magazines  and  other  periodicals,  they  were  not  even  thought  of. 

As  with  newspapers,  so  it  was  with  books :  there  were  few 
and  they  were  of  poor  quality.  Most  of  those  read  in  America 
were,  of  course,  imported  from  the  mother  country ;  but  there  were 
few  who,  like  Lewis  Morris  of  Morrisania,  could   instruct  their 

s"  Hart,  "Contemporaries,"  vol.  i.  p.  241. 

;,H  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  37. 

'■'■'•'  Weeden,  "  Social  and  Economic  History,"  vol.  ii.  p.  546. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  145 

1606-1776 

London  bookseller  to  send  a  long  list  "  lettered  and  gilt  as  usual." 
They  consisted  chiefly  of  theological  treatises,  essays  on  logic  and 
metaphysics,  biographies  and  treatises  on  the  law  of  nations. 
Among  the  books  most  widely  read  in  the  colonies  were  Fox's 
"  Lives  of  the  Martyrs,"  Vattel's  "  Law  of  Nations,"  Bunyan's 
"  Pilgrim's  Progress,"  Rollins's  "  Ancient  History,"  Plutarch's 
"  Lives,"  Watt's  "  Improvement  of  the  Mind,"  and  various  Latin 
and  Greek  authors. 

IV 

RELIGION    AND    RELIGIOUS    WORSHIP. 

Religious  worship  played  an  important  part  in  the  life  of  the 
colonies,  and  the  church  was  an  institution  of   vast  power  and 
influence  in  social  and  political  affairs.     The  basic  idea  of  all  the 
colonial  foundations  assumed  the  necessity  of  a  vital  relation  be- 
tween church  and  state.40     In  every  New  England  town  there  was 
a  Congregational  church,  which  was  in  a  sense  the  center  of  the 
town  life,  and  it  was  not  merely  the  creature  of  the  state,  but  was 
the  state  itself.41     The  moral  support  which  the  clergy,  the  most 
influential  element  in  the  New  England  colonies,  gave  to  the  gov- 
ernment was  very  powerful,  and  in  times  of  crises  they  were  leaders 
at  the  forefront.     They  were  held  in  great  respect  by  all  classes, 
and  their  advice  was  frequently  sought  by  the  magistrates,  and 
nearly  always  followed.     They  acted  as  referees  on  many  questions 
of  policy ;  their  expositions  of  the  laws  were  the  most  authoritative 
that  we  have;  they  frequently  prepared  the  first  draft  of  the  laws 
of  the  colony,  and  together  with  the  magistrates  they  acted  as 
censors  of  the  press ;  they  were,  in  short,  political  as  well  as  moral 
leaders.42     Attendance  upon  the  church  was  usually  required  by 
law  and  wras  strictly  enforced  by  the  magistrates.     Apparently  the 
people  did  not  consider  it  a  great  hardship  to  be  compelled  to  sit 
shivering  for  hours  on  wooden  benches  and  to  listen  to  harangues 
on  the  torture  of  a  lost  soul,  the  awful  wrath  of  God,  the  salvation 
of  the  elect,  or  some  other  doctrinal  question. 

The   Sabbath  day  was   observed  with  characteristic   Puritan 

40  Cobb,  "Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America,"  p.   i. 

41  Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  p.  281. 

42  Osgood,  "  The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,"  vol.  i.  p. 
218. 


146  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

strictness.  It  began  at  6  p.  m.  on  Saturday  and  lasted  until  sun- 
down on  Sunday,  and  during  this  period  amusements  of  every  kind 
were  absolutely  prohibited.  Traveling  and  lounging  on  the  streets, 
as  well  as  the  entertainment  of  strangers,  were  likewise  regarded 
as  sinful  and  forbidden  by  law.  The  people  of  the  town  were 
summoned  to  church  by  the  beating  of  a  drum  or  the  blowing  of 
a  horn,  for  bells  had  not  yet  come  into  use.  In  the  early  days, 
when  Indian  outbreaks  were  common,  the  parishioners  went  armed 
and  the  minister  frequently  delivered  his  discourse  with  a  musket 
by  his  side  and  a  sentinel  at  the  door.  That  such  precautions  were 
not  ill-timed,  the  Indian  tragedy  on  that  fateful  Sunday  morning 
at  Hadley  bears  witness.  The  worldly  individual  who  absented 
himself  from  the  house  of  God  on  the  Sabbath  day  was  waited 
upon  by  the  tithing-man  and  punished  either  by  fine  or  imprison- 
ment. The  thoughtless  maiden  who  smiled  during  the  service  was 
in  danger  of  banishment,  while  those  who  slumbered  received  ad- 
monitions from  the  tithing-man  of  such  a  nature  as  not  to  be  soon 
forgotten.  If  the  offender  belonged  to  the  male  sex  he  received 
a  rap  over  the  head  from  a  pole  in  the  hands  of  the  tithing-man; 
if  a  female,  she  was  awakened  by  the  gentle  brush  of  a  rabbit's 
foot.43 

The  church  services  strongly  reflected  the  Puritan  character. 
There  was  no  music  except  the  singing  of  hymns,  the  prayers 
compared  in  length  with  that  of  the  sermon,  and  sacraments  were 
a  regular  part  of  every  service.  The  men  were  seated  on  one  side 
of  the  aisle  and  the  women  on  the  other,  with  the  pulpit  steps  and 
the  rear  seats  occupied  by  the  children  and  negroes.  With  regard 
to  distance  from  the  pulpit  the  worshipers  were  carefully  seated 
according  to  age,  social  rank,  estate,  office,  or  amount  contributed 
toward  the  erection  of  the  church.  In  one  Long  Island  town  those 
who  contributed  forty  shillings  to  the  minister's  salary,  together 
with  the  justices  of  the  peace,  were  given  seats  at  the  table,  the 
trustees  of  the  church  were  given  the  front  seat,  while  the  remain- 
ing ones  were  assigned  on  the  basis  of  church  contributions.  One 
Massachusetts  town  had  a  standing  committee  of  five  to  seat  the 
church  members  and  another  committee  of  two  to  seat  the  com- 
mittee with  their  wives.44 

Religious  worship  in  New  England  was  characterized  by  a 

43  Lodge,  "Short  History  of  the  English  Colonies,'    p.   480  et  seq. 

44  Weeden,  "  Social  and  Economic  History,"  vol.  i.  pp.  280,  417,  418. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  147 

1606-1776 

superstition  and  intoleration  which  to  one  of  our  day  seems  almost 
incredible.  Having  fled  from  the  intolerance  of  England,  we  of 
this  generation  might  expect  to  see  the  New  England  church 
founded  on  the  rock  of  toleration,  if  not  of  religious  liberty;  but 
such  was  not  the  case,  for  it  soon  transpired  that  they  did  not  want 
religious  liberty  for  any  others  than  themselves.  To  the  early 
religious  leaders  of  Massachusetts  especially,  toleration  of  dissent 
from  the  "  established  order  "  of  religious  worship  was  as  sedition 
in  the  state  and  sin  against  God,  John  Cotton  going  so  far  as  to 
say  that  "  it  was  toleration  that  had  made  the  world  anti-Chris- 
tian." 45  Outside  of  Rhode  Island,  Catholics,  Jews,  Baptists, 
Quakers,  and  Episcopalians  were  at  times  subjected  to  various 
forms  of  persecution  —  flogging,  imprisonment,  exile,  and  even 
death.  The  New  England  hatred  for  those  who  adhered  to  the 
Church  of  England  was  especially  bitter.  No  attempt  was  ever 
made  by  the  home  government  to  force  this  church  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  the  New  England  colonies,  but  only  to  secure  for 
it  a  foothold.  But  in  this  the  government  was  unsuccessful  and  the 
church  never  made  any  headway  outside  of  Connecticut  and  Bos- 
ton. The  seventeenth  century  was  an  age  of  fierce  and  narrow 
bigotry,  but  as  time  passed  there  was  a  tendency  toward  a  wider 
toleration  of  religious  liberty  and  gradually  the  spirit  of  perse- 
cution died  away. 

Rhode  Island  was,  of  course,  an  exception  to  what  has  been  said 
concerning  religious  intolerance  in  New  England.  This  colony 
was  a  haven  for  despised  sects  of  every  class,  and  in  consequence 
of  the  complete  religious  liberty  which  it  allowed  in  an  intolerant 
age,  it  became  a  community  of  fanatical  sects,  and,  to  some  extent, 
of  turbulence,  disorder,  and  laxity  of  morals.  There  never  was, 
said  Cotton  Mather,  such  a  variety  of  religions  on  so  small  a  spot 
of  ground.46  For  a  long  time  church  membership  in  some  of  the 
New  England  States  was  a  qualification  for  the  exercise  of  the 
suffrage,  while  moral  and  religious  tests  for  office  were  not  un- 
common. Plymouth  denied  the  privileges  of  a  freeman  to  those 
who  were  not  of  a  "  sober,  peaceful  conversation,"  to  those  who 
were  "  grossly  scandalouse  or  notoriously  vitious,"  and  to  those 
who  spoke  "  contemptuously  "  of  the  laws  enacted  by  the  General 
Court.     By    a    latter   statute    Plymouth    required    freemen    to   be 

43  Cobb,  "  The  Rise  of  Religious  Liberty  in  America,"  p.  68. 

4,;  Richman,  "  Rhode  Island.  Its  Making  and  Its  Meaning,-'  vol.  i.  p.   106, 


148  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

"  orthodox  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion."  Massachusetts  (until 
1 691)  and  New  Haven  required  church  membership,  and  after 
1664  Massachusetts  required  a  certificate  from  the  minister  that 
the  applicant  was  not  "  vitious  "  in  his  life.  Connecticut  at  first 
denied  the  privilege  to  those  whose  conduct  was  known  to  be 
"  scandalous/'  while  Rhode  Island  required  a  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity, though  Roman  Catholics  were  debarred.  Virginia  denied 
the  franchise  to  transported  convicts  even  though  freeholders. 
South  Carolina,  by  a  statute  of  17 16,  required  voters  to  profess 
the  Christian  religion.  Roman  Catholics  were  expressly  disfran- 
chised by  the  statutes  of  New  York,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and 
Rhode  Island,  and  were  in  practice  not  allowed  to  vote  in  most  of 
the  other  colonies.  Quakers  were  debarred  from  becoming  freemen 
in  Massachusetts  and  Plymouth,  and  there  is  evidence  that  Jews 
were  excluded  in  New  York  and  South  Carolina.47  In  Massachu- 
setts, Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire  the  Congregational  Church 
was  established  by  law  and  was  supported  by  public  taxation,  and 
in  the  first  mentioned  State  it  was  not  completely  disestablished 
until  1835. 

In  New  York  under  Dutch  rule  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 
was  established  by  law,  and  other  sects,  notably  Lutherans,  Catho- 
lics, Jews,  and  Quakers,  were  not  tolerated,  but  were  arrested,  im- 
prisoned and  even  driven  from  the  colony.48  After  the  colony 
passed  under  English  rule  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  was  dis- 
established and  an  act  was  passed  to  maintain  the  Anglican  Church, 
and  later  (1686)  it  was  forced  upon  English  and  Dutch  alike,  all 
being  taxed  for  its  support.  But  this  policy  of  coercion  injured 
the  growth  of  the  church,  and  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  the 
dissenters  in  New  York  probably  outnumbered  the  Anglicans 
twelve  to  one.  Catholics  were  bitterly  persecuted  by  the  English 
authorities,  and  by  the  Act  of  1700  were  threatened  with  imprison- 
ment for  life  should  they  persist  in  their  "  heretical  "  teachings. 
In  1744  an  act  was  passed  against  Moravian  preaching  and  severe 
penalties  were  attached. 

In  New  Jersey,  Congregationalists  and  Scotch  Presbyterians 
were  the  predominant  sects,  and  the  Church  of  England  never 
gained  a  foothold  there,  although  certain  of  the  governors  gave  it 
support  and  precedence.     Pennsylvania  was  distinctly  the  land  of 

47  Bishop,   "  History  of  Elections  in  the   American   Colonies,"  pp.   53-64. 

48  Cobb,   "  Rise  of   Religious   Liberty   in   America,"   pp.  314-320. 


QUAKER    TRIAL 
After  a   J  i  tiding  by   A.   C.   RcinliarJt 


COLONIAL     LIFE  149 

1606-1776 

Quakers  and  Lutherans,  and  to  a  less  extent  was  her  little  neighbor, 
Delaware.  Here  there  was  an  unusual  degree  of  religious  toler- 
ance; as  a  consequence  of  which  a  number  of  sects,  such  as  Dun- 
kards,  Pietists,  Mennonites,  Baptists,  and  Dutch  Calvinists,  sprang 
into  existence.  The  Anglican  Church,  though  set  up  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, never  flourished.  The  only  anti-religious  legislation  was 
that  directed  against  Catholics,  who  were  charged  with  inciting  the 
people  to  join  the  French  during  the  Seven  Years'  War,  and  the 
motive  of  this  legislation  was  not  religious  oppression.  There 
were  no  instances  of  religious  persecution  in  Pennsylvania  or  of 
personal  hardships  for  religion's  sake,  unless  exclusion  from  office 
can  be  so  termed.49 

In  Maryland,  Virginia,  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia  the  Church 
of  England  was  established  by  law  and  supported  by  taxation.  In 
all  of  these,  however,  dissenters  were  numerous,  almost  equal  in 
fact  in  numbers  and  influence  to  the  Episcopalians.  The  Episcopal 
clergy  in  the  southern  colonies  did  not  always  come  up  to  the 
standard  of  intelligence  and  piety  of  the  Congregational  ministers 
of  New  England  and  played  a  far  less  important  role  in  the  social 
and  political  life  of  their  communities.  In  the  south  intolerance 
was  quite  as  strong  as  in  New  England.  In  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury Catholics,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Puritans,  and  Quakers  in 
Virginia  were  persecuted,  thrown  into  prison,  banished  and  harassed 
by  vexatious  laws,  while  at  the  outbreak  of  the  French  and  Indian 
War  an  act  was  passed  disarming  all  Catholics,  as  in  Pennsylvania, 
on  account  of  a  popular  belief  that  they  were  in  sympathy  with  the 
French.  Non-conformists'  meetings  were  broken  up  and  their  ad- 
herents expelled  from  the  colony.  But  no  amount  of  persecution 
could  break  up  the  dissenters;  only  a  handful  at  first,  they  largely 
outnumbered  the  Episcopalians  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution. 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that  the  British  Government  never  estab- 
lished an  episcopate  in  America,  and  never  appointed  a  bishop  for 
the  colonies.  Repeated  efforts  were  made  to  induce  the  govern- 
ment of  England  to  send  over  a  bishop  and  otherwise  aid  the 
Virginia  churches,  but  to  no  avail.50  They  remained  until  the 
Revolution  attached  to  the  diocese  of  London,  and  were  often 
supplied  with  discarded  English  clergymen  who  were  not  wanted 
at  home.     As  a  consequence  the  Episcopal  clergy,  in  addition  to 

49  Cobb,   "  Rise   of   Religious  Liberty   in   America,"   p.   450. 

50  Campbell,    "History   of   Virginia,''    p.   251. 


150  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

their  intellectual  inferiority,  were  often  dissolute  and  worthless, 
and  there  was  no  bishop  nearer  than  London  to  encourage,  admon- 
ish or  discipline  them.  The  Bishop  of  London  had,  it  is  true, 
"  commissaries  "  in  America,  but  they  had  no  power  to  restrain 
or  punish  their  erring  brethren,  and  could  only  report  what  came 
under  their  observation.  The  good  Bishop  Meade,  in  his  memoirs, 
constantly  complains  of  the  worldliness  and  incompetency  of  the 
clergy.  They  were  altogether  too  fond,  he  says,  of  horse-racing, 
gambling,  card-playing,  hunting,  drinking,  and  were,  besides,  pro- 
fane swearers,  brawlers,  and  licentious.  "  One  of  them,"  says 
Bishop  Meade,  "  was  for  years  president  of  a  jockey  club;  another 
fought  a  duel  in  sight  of  the  very  church  in  which  he  had  per- 
formed the  solemn  offices  of  religion;  another  quarreled  with  his 
vestry  violently,  and  on  the  next  Sunday  preached  from  the  words 
of  Nehemiah :  '  And  I  contended  with  them,  and  cursed  them,  and 
smote  certain  of  them,  and  plucked  out  their  hair.'"51  So  low, 
in  fact,  did  the  clergy  sink  that  by  acts  of  the  legislature  of  Vir- 
ginia, passed  in  1669  and  1705,  the  customary  exemption  of  clergy- 
men from  the  operation  of  the  laws  against  infidelity,  blasphemy, 
swearing,  Sabbath-breaking,  and  adultery  was  withdrawn  and 
they  were  made  subject  to  the  penalties  of  the  law  for  such  of- 
fenses.52 Not  a  few  of  the  clergy,  however,  remained  steadfast, 
were  worthy,  pious  leaders,  and  enjoyed  the  respect  and  admira- 
tion of  the  people;  but  they  were  exceptions  to  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  clergy.  On  account  of  the  failure  of  the  Crown  to  ap- 
point a  bishop  for  the  colonies,  no  native-born  American  could  be 
ordained  as  a  minister  without  incurring  the  long  delays  and 
indescribable  discomforts  of  a  journey  across  the  Atlantic.  In 
other  respects  candidates  for  ordination  were  compelled  to  face 
difficulties  which  were  enough  to  have  discouraged  the  most  zeal- 
ous of  churchmen.5'5 

The  Episcopal  clergy  were  generally  remunerated  in  kind, 
usually  a  stipulated  quantity  of  tobacco,  often  supplemented  by 
fees.  In  1748  the  amount  was  fixed  by  the  Virginia  legislature 
at  16,000  pounds,  including  a  glebe  and  a  parsonage.  The  cash 
equivalent,  of  course,  varied  with  the  quality  of  the  tobacco  and 
the  state  of  the  market,  but  at  the  time  it  was  estimated  to  be  £400 

51  "Old  Churches  and  Families  of  Virginia,"  pp.   14-18. 

52  Herring,  "Statutes  of  Virginia,''  vol.  iii.   pp.    171,  358. 

;,:j  T  revel  van,    "The   American   Revolution,"  part    ii.  p.   _'88. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  151 

1606-1776 

at  sixpence  per  pound.  In  consequence  of  bad  crops  and  heavy 
taxes  on  account  of  the  French  and  Indian  War  the  legislature 
in  1758  enacted  the  so-called  "  Two- Penny  Act,"  providing  that 
all  debts  payable  in  tobacco  might,  at  the  option  of  the  debtor,  be 
discharged  in  money  at  the  rate  of  £18  and  8d.  per  one  hundred 
pounds  of  tobacco,  thus  in  effect  reducing  the  salary  of  the  clergy 
by  two-thirds.  In  view  of  the  early  rise  of  the  price  of  tobacco  the 
act  was  clearly  unjust  to  the  clergy,  as  well  as  to  others  whose 
salaries  were  payable  in  tobacco,  and  they  lost  no  time  in  seeking 
relief  in  the  courts.  In  due  course  the  "  Two-Penny  Law  "  was 
held  to  be  invalid  and  it  was  generally  believed  that  the  jury 
would  award  damages  to  the  plaintiffs.  But  at  this  juncture 
Patrick  Henry,  a  young,  obscure  country  lawyer,  whose  past  life 
had  been  a  virtual  failure,  appeared  for  the  defendants  and  delivered 
a  speech  which  at  once  raised  him  to  the  front  rank  of  American 
orators.  After  he  had  concluded,  the  jury  rendered  a  verdict 
assessing  the  damages  at  one  penny.  The  clergy  attempted  no 
further  suits,  but  waited  for  relief  from  a  wiser  legislature.  The 
persistence  of  the  clergy  in  attacking  the  act  of  the  legislature  had 
the  effect  of  still  further  arousing  public  sentiment  against  them, 
for  it  was  now  asserted  that  they  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
people  in  their  poverty  and  burdens,  but  were  only  concerned  with 
their  own  enrichment. 

V 

MEANS  OF  TRAVEL,  SOCIAL  CUSTOMS  AND  CRIME 

Compared  with  conditions  of  to-day,  life  in  the  colonies  was 
extremely  narrow  and  monotonous.  There  was  an  isolation  and 
stagnation  about  it  which  would  be  intolerable  to  the  twentieth 
century.  Each  community  was  a  life  unto  itself;  it  was  to  a  large 
degree  self-sufficing  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  for  means  of  inter- 
course were  crude  and  imperfect.  There  were  no  railroads  in 
existence  and  travel  by  sailboat  was  not  always  convenient  or  pos- 
sible, and  besides  it  was  too  uncertain  to  rely  upon.  Travel  by 
horseback  or  stage-coach  was,  therefore,  the  chief  alternative.  Be- 
sides indescribable  discomforts  and  hardships,  there  was  the  ele- 
ment of  time  involved.  In  1756  the  first  regular  stage  between 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  was  established.  It  required  three 
days  to  make  the  trip,  and  four  days  more  to  extend  the  journey  to 


152  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

Boston.54  Something  of  a  sensation  was  caused  in  1765  by  the 
announcement  that  a  coach,  described  as  "  a  good  wagon  with 
seats  on  springs,"  would  thereafter  make  the  journey  between 
Philadelphia  and  New  York  in  two  days,  and  at  the  low  cost  of 
twenty  shillings  for  the  through  trip.  This  record  seemed  so 
marvelous  that  the  vehicle  was  popularly  dubbed  a  "  flying  ma- 
chine.'' Ordinarily  the  conveyances  were  shackling  old  vehicles 
drawn  by  jaded  and  ill-fed  horses.  In  dry  weather  and  on  the 
best  roads  they  made  from  thirty  to  forty  miles  per  day,  at  other 
times  rarely  more  than  twenty-five,  and  only  by  frequent  relays 
could  this  rate  of  speed  be  kept  up.  The  tired  passengers,  after 
a  restless  night  in  a  tavern,  were  called  up  at  four  in  the  morning 
by  the  sound  of  the  driver's  horn.  At  steep  hillsides  and  mud- 
holes  the  passengers  were  required  to  alight  and  help  the  heavy 
vehicle  over.  The  hardships  and  dangers  of  crossing  large  rivers 
in  unsafe  ferryboats  often  deterred  many  from  traveling  and  were 
a  source  of  anxiety  to  the  friends  of  those  who  did.  Greater  still 
were  the  difficulties  of  ocean  travel.  It  required  months  to  cross 
the  Atlantic,  and  news  of  events  in  the  old  country  was  ancient 
history  when  it  reached  the  remote  settlements  of  America.  Noth- 
ing but  the  most  urgent  business  in  Europe  could  induce  an  Amer- 
ican to  undertake  such  a  journey. 

At  first  there  were  no  postal  facilities  except  such  as  were 
supplied  by  private  enterprise.  Letters  from  abroad  were  deliv- 
ered at  the  wharf  to  those  who  called  for  them  or  sent  to  a  nearby 
store  or  coffee-house  for  delivery  whenever  requested.  The  colony 
of  Massachusetts  apparently  was  the  first  to  take  steps  looking  to 
the  establishment  of  a  postal  system  under  government  control. 
In  1639  the  General  Court  enacted  the  following  law:  "It  is 
ordered  that  notice  be  given  that  Richard  Fairbanks  his  house  in 
Boston  is  the  place  appointed  for  all  letters  which  are  brought 
from  beyond  the  seas,  or  are  to  be  sent  thither  to  be  left  with 
him ;  and  he  is  to  take  care  that  they  are  to  be  delivered,  or  sent 
according  to  directions:  and  he  shall  be  allowed  for  every  letter  a 
penny,  and  he  must  answer  all  miscarriages  through  his  own  neg- 
lect in  this  kind,  provided  that  no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  bring 
his  letters  thither  except  he  please." 

Toward  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  colonial  gov- 
ernment of  New  York  established  a  monthly  mail  between  the  towns 
54  McMaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  44. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  153 

1606-1776 

of  New  York  and  Boston.  In  1692  the  Virginia  legislature  passed 
an  act  reciting  that  one  Thomas  Neale  had  been  empowered  by 
letters  patent  from  William  and  Mary  to  take  charge  of  the  postal 
business  of  the  colonies.  Neale's  patent  authorized  him  "  to  erect, 
settle  and  establish  offices  in  America  for  the  receiving  and  dis- 
patching away  letters  and  packquettes,"  and  to  appoint  such  as- 
sistants as  were  necessary  to  aid  him.  This  patent  created  the 
first  intercolonial  postal  service.  The  charges  for  carrying  a  letter 
ranged  from  <\d  to  15c?,  according  to  the  distance.  Benjamin 
Franklin  was  in  a  sense  the  father  of  the  American  postal  system. 
In  1753  he  received,  with  William  Hunter,  a  royal  commission  as 
deputy  postmaster-general  for  the  colonies,  and  he  at  once  pro- 
ceeded to  organize  the  service  and  made  a  tour  of  personal  in- 
spection, visiting  every  post  office  in  the  colonies  except  that  at 
Charleston.  Franklin  established  a  regular  system  of  offices  and 
carriers,  with  a  schedule  of  postage  averaging  a  penny  for  about 
thirty  miles.  He  adopted  the  practice  of  requiring  subscribers 
to  pay  for  having  newspapers  carried,  and  "  advertised  "  uncalled 
for  letters  and  established  three  mails  per  week  during  the  summer 
season  between  New  York  and  Philadelphia.55 

The  post  office  department  was  soon  placed  on  a  paying  basis, 
and  by  1774  it  was  yielding  a  clear  annual  revenue  of  three  thou- 
sand pounds  to  the  British  treasury.  In  the  latter  year  Franklin 
was  removed  by  the  home  government  on  account  of  his  activity 
in  the  Revolutionary  movement,  but  in  the  following  year  was 
unanimously  appointed  postmaster-general  by  the  Continental  Com 
gress  and  authorized  to  establish  a  line  of  posts  from  Falmouth, 
Maine,  to  Savannah,  Georgia,  and  as  many  cross  posts  as  might 
seem  necessary.  As  compared  with  those  of  the  present  day,  the 
postal  facilities  of  the  colonial  period  were  of  the  crudest  kind. 
The  rates  of  postage  were  very  high,  the  mails  were  slow  and 
irregular  on  account  of  the  difficulties  of  travel,  and  postriders 
and  postmasters  frequently  were  untrustworthy.  Letters  were  not 
infrequently  opened  and  read  by  the  postmaster,  to  guard  against 
which  important  communications  were  often  written  in  cipher. 
Newspapers  at  first  were  not  allowed  to  be  sent  through  the  mail, 
but  were  carried  by  private  arrangement  between  the  sender  and 
the  postrider. 

During  the  colonial  period  few  luxuries  of  the  present  day 
55  Sparks,  "  Expansion  of  the  American   People,"  vol.   i.  p.  64. 


15*  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

were  to  be  had,  and  the  same  was  true  of  many  articles  now 
considered  as  necessaries  of  life.  Everywhere,  however,  there  was 
an  abundance  to  eat  and  drink,  and  the  evidences  of  satisfaction 
and  contentment  were  seldom  wanting.  In  New  England  social 
life  had  a  Puritanic  cast  which  found  its  fullest  expression  in  re- 
ligious services.  The  gathering  at  the  "  meeting  house  "  on  Sun- 
day was  the  chief  social  event  of  the  week,  as  the  sermon  was  the 
principal  intellectual  event.  The  regulation  by  statute  of  the  dress, 
daily  habits  and  social  usages  of  the  people  was  a  distinctive  feature 
of  Puritan  polity.  The  wearing  of  gaudy  or  costly  apparel  did 
not,  in  the  eye  of  the  Puritan,  comport  with  "good  moral  conduct, 
and  it  was  therefore  forbidden  in  many  New  England  communities. 
Thus  by  a  statute  of  1634  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts 
forbade  the  purchase  of  any  cloth  with  lace  on  it  or  the  making 
of  a  dress  with  more  than  one  slash  on  the  sleeve  or  adorned 
with  embroidery  or  silver  buckles.  There  were  apparently  a  good 
many  prosecutions  under  the  act.56  By  a  statute  of  1677  the 
wearing  of  gold  or  silver  lace  or  buttons  or  silk  ribbons  or  other 
superfluous  trimmings  was  forbidden,  but  magistrates,  their  fam- 
ilies and  miltary  officers  were  exempted  from  the  law.  Connecti- 
cut forbade  the  wearing  of  silk,  but  Rhode  Island  enacted  no 
sumptuary  legislation. 

Many  were  the  statutes  for  the  regulation  of  the  morals  of  the 
people.  In  Connecticut  these  regulations  were  marked  by  such 
extreme  severity  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  under  the  name 
of  the  "  Blue  Laws."  To  mention  a  few  of  them :  no  one  was 
allowed  to  give  lodging  to  a  Quaker  or  other  heretic,  to  walk  about 
town  on  the  Sabbath  day  except  reverently  to  and  from  meeting, 
no  one  could  travel,  or  cook  victuals,  make  beds,  sweep  house,  cut 
hair  or  shave  on  the  Lord's  day,  nor  bring  cards  into  the  colony, 
nor  dance,  nor  play  on  any  instrument  of  music  except  the  drum, 
the  trumpet  and  the  jewsharp.57  Many  innocent  amusements  were 
suppressed.  Drinking  and  smoking  were  placed  under  strict  regu- 
lations. The  harboring  of  strangers  and  even  relatives  was  regu- 
lated and  sometimes  forbidden,  and  outsiders  were  not  allowed 
to  enter  the  colony  without  the  permission  of  the  magistrates. 
In  spite,  however,  of  the  austerity  and  soberness  of  Puritanism, 

BeWeeden,  "Social  and  Economic  Historv  of  New  England,"  vol.  i.  p.  289, 
226. 

:,T  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  pp.  225,  272. 


COLONIAL     LIFE  155 

1606-1776 

human  nature  occasionally  asserted  itself  and  the  monotony  of 
New  England  life  was  enlivened  by  corn  husking  and  quilting 
parties,  spinning  bees,  house  raisings,  sleigh  rides,  Thanksgiving 
feasts,  militia  musters  and  athletic  sports  of  various  kinds,  often 
followed  by  the  drinking  of  rum.  As  time  passed  the  old  restraints 
upon  amusement  were  relaxed  and  there  were  picnics,  tea  parties, 
and  even  dances,  horse  races,  and  bull  baitings. 

The  New  England  farmhouse,  with  its  scanty  furniture  and 
unattractive  exterior,  had  a  redeeming  feature  in  the  great  fire- 
place, around  which  the  family  gathered  during  the  long  winter 
evenings  to  read  books,  tell  stories  or  perform  various  domestic 
duties,  such  as  wool-carding,  spinning  and  corn-husking.  In  the 
large  towns  of  New  England  there  were,  of  course,  more  of  the 
comforts  and  luxuries  of  life.  The  houses  were  frequently  built 
of  brick  or  stone  and  richly  furnished  with  carpets,  silver  and 
glassware,  tapestries  and  mahogany  furniture  imported  from  Eng- 
land. There,  as  in  New  York,  was  to  be  found  a  gay  and  fash- 
ionable society.  The  people  dressed  handsomely  and  lived  luxuri- 
ously. In  New  England  towns  and  villages  were  numerous  and 
situated  near  together,  mainly  for  the  purposes  of  defense  and 
convenience  of  worship. 

In  the  southern  colonies,  especially  in  Virginia,  social  life  was 
affected  by  the  existence  of  a  landed  aristocracy  of  Cavalier  in- 
stincts, among  whom  extreme  Puritanic  ideas  scarcely  prevailed. 
Plantations  were  large  and  towns  few  and  insignificant,  in  spite  of 
the  attempt  of  the  legislature  to  create  them  by  artificial  process, 
as  it  did  in  1680  by  the  Cohabitation  Act,  which  ordered  towns  to 
be  built  at  certain  specified  places  for  the  benefit  of  trade.58  The 
wealthy  planters  stood  at  the  apex  of  the  social  pyramid.  They 
occupied  spacious  mansions  built  sometimes  of  imported  brick  or 
stone,  paneled  and  wainscoted  in  hard  woods,  with  great  fireplaces 
and  rich  mantels  and  furnished  with  an  elegance  befitting  the  manor 
houses  of  old  England.  They  had  carriages,  servants,  blooded 
horses,  packs  of  hounds  in  abundance  and  enjoyed  to  the  fullest  the 
few  luxuries  which  the  times  afforded.  The  wealthy  planters  were 
fond  of  hunting,  horse  racing,  dancing,  gaming  and  other  amuse- 
ments, as  well  as  of  politics,  in  which  field  they  were  the  leaders. 
They  were  fond  of  drink,  and  in  this  respect  were  not  far  ahead 
of  their  fellow  countrymen  of  New  England.  In  fact  drinking  was 
5S  Lodge,  "  Short  History  of  the  English  Colonies,"  p.  51. 


156  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1606-1776 

common  in  all  the  colonies.  Every  tavern  or  ordinary  inn  kept 
liquor  for  sale,  while  every  well-to-do  householder  usually  had 
it  on  his  sideboard. 

The  liquors  most  commonly  drunk  were  rum,  beer  and  cider. 
A  peculiar  custom  was  the  practice  of  drinking  at  funerals,  on 
which  occasions  large  quantities  of  liquor  were  consumed  by  the 
mourners.59  Besides  being  occasions  of  pomp  and  excesses,  funer- 
als were  expensive  affairs  on  account  of  the  custom  of  giving 
presents,  and  the  practice  led  to  the  enactment  of  laws  in  some 
colonies  to  limit  the  expense  of  burials.  The  wife  of  the  great 
patroon  Stephen  Van  Rensselaer,  is  said  to  have  been  interred 
at  an  expense  of  $20,000.  Two  thousand  scarfs  were  given  away 
as  presents  and  all  the  tenants  on  the  manor  were  entertained  for 
three  or  four  days  at  the  expense  of  their  landlord.  The  custom 
of  heavy  drinking  at  funerals,  as  well  as  the  practice  of  giving 
presents,  was  general  throughout  the  colonies,  but  it  was  carried 
to  more  extreme  lengths  in  New  York  during  the  Dutch  supremacy 
than  elsewhere.60 

While  drunkenness  was  probably  regarded  with  less  disfavor 
than  now,  there  was  in  other  respects  a  much  stricter  code  of 
morality.  Laws  against  crime  were  severe  and  many  offenses 
were  capitally  punished  that  to-day  carry  a  penalty  of  small  con- 
sequence. Thus  blasphemy  in  Massachusetts  was  made  a  capital 
offense  in  1646.  Playing  in  the  streets,  "  uncivilly  "  walking  in  the 
streets  or  fields,  traveling  from  town  to  town,  going  on  shipboard, 
frequenting  taverns  and  other  places  to  drink  were  forbidden  un- 
der severe  penalties.61  Furthermore,  the  manner  of  punishment 
often  tended  to  degrade  and  needlessly  humiliate  the  offender.  It 
was  the  custom  to  give  as  much  publicity  as  possible  to  punishments 
in  the  belief  that  it  would  serve  as  a  deterrent  to  other  evil-doers. 
Criminals  were  branded,  labeled  with  conspicuous  letters  indicative 
of  their  offense,  and  flogged  through  the  streets,  while  the  whip- 
ping-post, the  ducking-stool,  the  pillory  and  the  stocks  were  fa- 
miliar objects  in  the  public  square  of  many  towns. 


r,°  It  is  related  that  at  the  funeral  of  Mrs.  Cornelia  Van  Cortlandt,  mother 
of  General  Philip  Schuyler,  140  gallons  of  wine  and  two  barrels  of  ale  were 
thus  consumed.     Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  280. 

f,°  Lodge.  "  Short  History  of  the  English  Colonies,"  p.  338. 

81  Osgood,  "  The  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,"  vol.  i. 
p.  215. 


Chapter  VII 

INTER-COLONIAL   WARS.     1 689-1 748 
I 

king  William's  war.     1 689-1 697 

THE  rivalry  between  Great  Britain  and  France  in  America 
had  been  steadily  increasing  for  many  years  when  the 
English  Revolution  of  1688  gave  to  that  rivalry  a  new 
turn.  The  bigoted  and  despotic  James  II.  had  been  forced  by  his 
subjects  to  abandon  the  English  throne,  and  the  crown  had  been 
conferred  jointly  upon  William  and  Mary.  James,  upon  abdicat- 
ing, fled  to  France,  where  he  was  cordially  received  by  Louis  XIV., 
who  at  once  espoused  his  cause  and  undertook  to  restore  the  exiled 
monarch  to  his  lost  throne.  War  accordingly  broke  out  between 
the  two  countries  in  1689,  and  soon  spread  to  their  colonies  in 
America,  although  none  of  them  had  any  direct  interest  in  the 
issues  involved.  In  Europe  the  contest  was  known  as  the  War 
of  the  Palatinate ;  in  America  it  was  called  King  William's  War. 

As  compared  with  the  English  possessions  the  French  colonies 
in  America  were  so  inferior  in  resources  and  population  that  they 
did  not  undertake  to  conduct  a  regular  campaign  against  the  Eng- 
lish, but  resorted  to  savage  raids  and  expeditions  for  the  purpose 
of  harrying  their  settlements  and  massacring  their  unoffending 
inhabitants.  The  French  population  in  America  probably  did  not 
exceed  12,000  as  against  100.000  English  settlers  in  New  Eng- 
land and  New  York.  But  the  French  had  an  invaluable  resource 
in  their  Indian  allies,  who  were  well  fitted  by  nature  for  the  pur- 
poses for  which  they  were  employed  by  the  hardly  less  barbarous 
white  commanders. 

The  governor  of  Canada  was  the  aged  Count  Frontenac,  the 
most  distinguished  of  the  French  officials  in  America  and  a  man 
who  did  not  scruple  to  employ  whatever  methods  were  available 
to  destroy  the  English  colonists  to  the  south  of  him.1     One  of  the 

1  Parkman,    "  The    Struggle    for    a    Continent,"    edited   by    Edgar,    p.    233 ; 
Greene,  "  Provincial  America,"  p.  121. 

157 


158  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1690 

expeditions  which  he  sent  against  the  English  settlements,  con- 
sisting of  one  hundred  and  ten  men,  a  considerable  number  of 
whom  were  Iroquois  Indians,  reached  Schenectady  in  February, 
1690,  after  traveling  over  the  snows  for  nearly  a  month,  and  while 
the  quiet  little  village  lay  wrapped  in  slumber  they  stealthily  en- 
tered its  unguarded  gates,  gave  the  war  whoop  and  began  their 
work  of  slaughter.  Sixty  of  the  inhabitants  were  massacred,  of 
whom  seventeen  were  children,  many  were  taken  captive  and  car- 
ried off  to  Canada,  while  a  few  escaped  and  fled  half-clad  through 
the  snows  to  Albany.2  Another  party  of  fifty-two  French  and 
Indians,  commanded  by  Hertel  de  Rouville.  fell  upon  the  village 
of  Salmon  Falls,  New  Hampshire,  burned  many  of  its  houses, 
massacred  a  goodly  number  of  the  inhabitants  and  carried  off  fifty- 
four  prisoners,  mainly  women  and  children.  The  towns  of  Dover, 
Casco  and  Pemaquid  were  subjected  to  similar  cruelties  and  bar- 
barities. 

In  consequence  of  the  general  alarm  to  which  these  events 
gave  rise  a  colonial  congress  was  called,  mainly  through  the  initia- 
tion of  the  Massachusetts  General  Court.  It  met  at  New  York  in 
May,  1690,  commissioners  being  present  from  the  colonies  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, Plymouth,  Connecticut  and  New  York.  The  congress 
took  into  consideration  the  state  of  affairs  occasioned  by  the  French 
and  Indian  massacres  and  decided  to  make  an  attempt  to  conquer 
Canada  by  sending  an  army  overland  to  attack  Montreal  and  a 
fleet  by  sea  to  capture  Quebec.  Sir  William  Phipps  took  com- 
mand of  the  fleet,  consisting  of  thirty-four  vessels,  furnished  by 
Massachusetts  and  manned  by  two  thousand  of  her  citizens/' 
Within  less  than  a  month  from  the  adjournment  of  the  congress 
Phipps  had  taken  Port  Royal  (now  Annapolis),  but  in  the  follow- 
ing year  it  was  retaken  by  the  French. 

On  October  16  the  fleet  reached  Quebec,  and  Phipps  made  a 
pompous  demand  upon  Governor  Frontenac  for  its  surrender  and 
gave  him  an  hour  for  an  answer,  saying,  "If  you  refuse  forthwith 
to  do,  I  am  come,  provided,  and  am  resolved,  by  the  help  of  God. 
to  revenge  all  wrongs  and  injuries  offered  and  bring  you  under 
subjection  to  the  Crown  of  England,  and,  when  too  late,  make 
you  wish  you  had  accepted  of  the  favor  tendered."  Frontenac 
immediately   informed  the  messenger   who  delivered  the   demand 

2  Bancroft,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  180. 
:;  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  181. 


INTER-COLONIAL     WARS  159 

1690-1697 

that  he  did  not  recognize  King  William;  that  he  knew  no  king  of 
England  except  King  James,  and  that  he  would  answer  Phipps's 
demand  only  by  the  mouth  of  his  cannon.4  Phipps  was  not  able  to 
carry  out  his  threat.  Quebec  was  strongly  fortified  and  well  gar- 
risoned, while  Phipps's  vessels  were  small  wooden  craft  and  manned 
by  inexperienced  gunners,  as  subsequent  events  showed.  A  plan 
of  attack,  however,  was  arranged  and  the  fort  was  bombarded,  but 
without  effect.  Thereupon  the  fleet  weighed  anchor,  sailed  away 
and  returned  to  Boston  in  November,  after  having  been  badly 
scattered  by  storm  and  many  of  the  men  lost.  All  was  now  dismay 
and  gloom  in  Boston.  The  colony  was  already  impoverished  and 
burdened  with  debt,  and  now  it  was  compelled  for  the  first  time  in 
its  history  to  issue  a  quantity  of  paper  currency  with  which  to  pay 
clamorous  soldiers  and  sailors  whose  services  had  resulted  only  in 
failure  and  disaster.  The  land  force  sent  against  Montreal  met 
with  no  better  success,  and  after  being  repelled  by  Frontenac,  it 
returned  to  New  York. 

All  attempts  at  offensive  war  were  now  given  up,  and  the 
disappointed,  impoverished  colonists  contented  themselves  with  de- 
fending their  frontiers  as  best  they  could  against  the  barbarous 
incursions  of  the  enemy.  For  several  years  longer  the  war 
dragged  on.  In  January,  1692,  a  band  of  French  and  Indians 
came  down  on  snowshoes  from  Canada  and  fell  upon  the  town  of 
York,  Maine,  sacked  the  place  and  offered  the  inhabitants  the  choice 
between  captivity  or  death.  In  the  following  year  a  village  in 
New  Hampshire  was  destroyed  and  ninety-four  of  its  inhabitants 
killed  or  carried  away.  Various  other  New  England  villages  suf- 
fered similar  and  even  worse  fates.  A  familiar  story  of  the  bar- 
barity of  the  enemy,  one  which  illustrates  the  heroism  of  the  Eng- 
lish settlers,  is  that  of  Hannah  Dustin,  the  wife  of  a  farmer  near 
Haverhill,  Massachusetts,  who,  having  seen  her  house  burned  and 
her  children  murdered  by  savages  in  the  French  service,  and  having 
been  herself  carried  off  into  captivity,  killed  and  scalped  ten  of  her 
captors  while  they  lay  asleep,  and  finally  made  her  escape  and 
returned  home.5 

At  last,  in  1697,  this  unrighteous  war,  which  had  brought 
such  great  disaster,  sorrow  and  desolation  to  the  English  settle- 
ments in  America,  was  ended  by  the  Treaty  of  Ryswick.     The 

4  Parkman,  "  Count  Frontenac  and  New  France  under  Louis  XIV.,"  ch.  xiii. 

5  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United   States,"  vol.  ii.  p.   182. 


160  THE     UNITED      STATES 


1697-1704 


only  provision  affecting  America  was  that   which  called  for  the 
restoration  of  Acadia  to  France. 


II 

QUEEN    ANNE'S    WAR.       I702-I714 

The  Peace  of  Ryswick  proved  to  be  only  a  truce.  Within 
four  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  England  and  France 
were  again  at  war,  and  the  conflict  of  necessity  extended  to  their 
colonial  settlements  in  America.  In  Europe  the  contest  was  known 
as  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  from  the  fact  that  it  grew 
out  of  the  attempt  of  Louis  XIV.  to  place  his  grandson,  Philip 
of  Anjou,  on  the  Spanish  throne.  Great  Britain  was  unwilling  to 
see  such  an  enormous  extension  of  her  old  enemy's  influence  in 
European  affairs,  and  so  went  to  war  with  her  to  prevent  it.  Al- 
though her  colonies  in  America  were  only  remotely  interested,  if 
at  all,  in  the  question,  they  were  dragged  into  the  conflict  and 
became  the  chief  sufferers.  In  method  and  results  it  was  King 
William's  War  over  again.  Instead  of  regular  campaigns  and 
hard  fought  battles,  there  was  the  usual  harrying  by  savage  red 
men  and  Frenchmen  of  the  English  settlements  on  the  coast,  and 
the  massacring  of  the  inhabitants,  irrespective  of  age  or  sex. 

Early  in  1704,  in  the  dead  of  winter,  a  party  consisting  of 
about  fifty  Canadians  and  two  hundred  Indians,  according  to 
French  accounts,  commanded  by  the  same  Hertel  de  Rouville  who 
had  burned  the  village  of  Salmon  Falls  during  William's  War, 
after  journeying  nearly  three  hundred  miles  on  snowshoes  through 
the  vast  wilderness  lying  between  Canada  and  the  Massachusetts 
frontier,  fell  upon  the  peaceful  village  of  Deerfield  with  a  terrible 
war  whoop  and  massacred  not  less  than  fifty  of  its  three  hundred 
unsuspecting  inhabitants.  One  hundred  and  eleven  persons  were 
carried  away  into  captivity,  only  one-half  of  whom  ever  succeeded 
in  returning,  while  the  remaining  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven 
escaped  with  their  lives  only  to  have  their  homes  destroyed  by 
their  barbarous  enemy.  Among  those  carried  off  as  captives  were 
the  village  minister,  Mr.  Williams,  his  wife  and  five  children.  Mrs. 
Williams  was  soon  put  to  death  with  a  tomahawk',  but  the  others, 
with  the  exception  of  a  seven-year-old  girl,  were  subsequently 
rescued.     This  girl  grew  to  womanhood  among  her  savage  cap- 


INTER-COLONIAL     WARS  161 

1704-1711 

lives,  and  afterwards  married  one  of  them  and  reared  a  family  of 
children.  Subsequently  visiting  Deerfield,  she  was  entreated  by 
old  friends  to  forsake  her  Indian  husband  and  children  and  resume 
her  residence  among  the  associates  of  her  childhood;  but  this  she 
refused  to  do,  and  returned  to  the  fires  of  her  wigwam  and  to 
the  love  of  her  Indian  children.6  During  the  ensuing  years  of  the 
war  other  towns  in  Massachusetts  suffered  a  fate  similar  to  that 
of  Deerfield.  One  of  these  was  Haverhill,  a  village  of  thirty 
cottages  and  log  cabins  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  a  great 
primeval  forest.  On  the  night  of  August  29,  1708,  a  party  of 
French  and  Indians  commanded  by  De  Rouville  rushed  into  the 
peaceful  hamlet  and  began  the  work  of  massacring  the  inhabitants. 
Some  were  shot,  others  tomahawked,  while  still  others,  especially 
children,  had  their  brains  dashed  out  against  stones  and  trees.7 

Meantime  the  home  government  was  making  an  effort  to  cap- 
ture Port  Royal,  which,  as  has  been  said,  was  taken  by  the  Eng- 
lish in  the  previous  war,  but  was  recaptured  by  the  French.  In 
1704  and  again  in  1707  a  fleet  from  Boston  made  ineffectual  at- 
tempts to  take  the  place.  Finally,  in  1710,  a  fleet  under  command 
of  Colonel  Nicholson  was  sent  over  from  England,  and  being  re- 
enforced  by  New  England  vessels,  it  sailed  from  Boston  in  Sep- 
tember, and  in  the  following  month  succeeded  in  taking  Port 
Royal,  which  was  thenceforth  called  Annapolis,  in  honor  of  the 
Queen,  while  Acadia  was  renamed  Nova  Scotia.8  Encouraged 
by  this  victory,  Colonel  Nicholson  urged  the  home  government  to 
undertake  a  conquest  of  Canada.  His  recommendations  were  ap- 
proved and  a  fleet  of  fifteen  warships  and  forty  transports,  together 
with  seven  veteran  regiments  from  Marlborough's  army,  altogether 
about  12,000  men,  were  sent  over  under  the  command  of  Sir 
Hovenden  Walker.9 

It  was  the  most  formidable  naval  display  ever  seen  in  American 
waters,  and  caused  quite  a  commotion  in  Boston.  In  July,  171 1, 
it  sailed  from  Boston  for  Canada,  while  at  the  same  time  a  land 
force  consisting  of  militia  from  New  York,  Connecticut  and  New 

6  Parkman,  "  Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  vol.  i.  ch.  iv. ;  Bancroft,  "  History  of 
the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  196;  Greene,  "Provincial  America,"  p.  145. 

7  Bancroft,   "  History  of  the  United   States,"  vol.   ii.  p.   197. 

8  Parkman,  "  Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  vol.  i.  p.   148. 

9  Bancroft,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  200.  Parkman  says 
the  fleet  consisted  of  nine  ships  of  war  and  about  sixty  transports  and  other 
vessels.     "  Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  p.  163. 


162  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1711-1714 

Jersey,  together  with  almost  six  hundred  friendly  Iroquois  Indians, 
set  out  from  Albany  for  the  purpose  of  taking  Montreal.  Not 
since  the  outbreak  of  the  war  nine  years  before  had  the  hopes  of 
the  English  colonists  been  so  high  as  now.  But  they  were  soon 
to  end  in  disappointment.  After  considerable  delay  Walker's  fleet 
entered  the  St.  Lawrence,  but  instead  of  taking  Quebec,  as  his  gov- 
ernment had  a  right  to  expect,  the  apparently  timid  and  incompe- 
tent admiral  was  seized  with  fears  lest  the  freezing  of  the  river 
would  bring  his  ships  to  ruin,  and  he  accordingly  refused  to  pro- 
cede.  Becoming  involved  in  a  dense  fog  near  the  mouth  of  the 
river,  a  number  of  ships  and  about  800  lives  were  lost  through 
his  blundering.  Thus  the  expedition  ended  in  failure  and  dis- 
grace, although  \Yalker  was  able  to  find  consolation  in  the  re- 
flection that  the  wreck  "  was  a  blessing  in  disguise  and  a  merciful 
intervention  of  Providence  "  to  save  the  expedition  from  the  freez- 
ing, starvation  and  cannibalism  which  his  imagination  had  con- 
jured up.10 

Few  episodes  in  American  colonial  history  are  more  humili- 
ating than  this  expedition  against  Quebec,  and  many  in  New  Eng- 
land loudly  attributed  it  to  cowardice,  if  not  to  treachery.3 *  Nich- 
olson, learning  of  the  failure  of  the  naval  expedition  against  Que- 
bec while  in  camp  near  Lake  Champlain,  burned  the  forts  he  had 
built,  marched  back  to  Albany  and  disbanded  his  army  of  2,300 
men.  Thus  far  only  defeat  and  disaster  had  crowned  English 
operations  in  America.  In  Europe  English  successes  had  been 
brilliant  and  numerous,  and  now  that  both  nations  were  tired  of 
fighting  peace  was  concluded  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  April,  171 3. 
By  this  treaty  the  "  five  nations,"  known  as  the  Iroquois,  who  had 
been  allies  of  the  English,  were  recognized  as  subjects  of  Great 
Britain;  while  Hudson  Bay,  Newfoundland  and  Acadia,  with  its 
"  ancient  limits,"  were  ceded  by  France  to  England,  the  latter 
territory  being  yielded  only  with  the  greatest  reluctance  on  the 
part  of  the  aged  French  monarch  who  made  strenuous  efforts  to 
retain  this  favorite  province.  The  net  result  of  the  war  was  a 
real  advance  in  the  prestige  of  Great  Britain  in  North  America, 
and  a  serious  though  not  decisive  defeat  for  France.12 

10  Parkman,  "Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  p.   170. 

11  Greene,    "  Provincial    America,"    p.    160. 
™lbid.,  p.  165. 


INTER-COLONIAL     WARS  163 

1714-1740 

III 

king  George's  war.     i  744-1 748 

The  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  like  that  of  Ryswick,  brought  but  a 
temporary  peace  to  Europe  and  America.  Its  great  defect  was 
that  it  did  not  settle  definitely  several  important  questions,  the 
settlement  of  which  was  absolutely  necessary  to  the  future  peace 
of  the  two  contending  nations.  The  limits  of  Acadia,  as  well  as 
the  boundary  between  New  France  and  the  English  colonies  both 
in  the  north  and  the  west,  were  left  undetermined,  and  therefore 
made  a  future  conflict  inevitable.  The  next  thirty  years  were, 
therefore,  years  of  nominal  peace,  but  of  actual  smothered  war  in 
disguise.13 

While  France  was  forced  to  give  up  Acadia  she  was  allowed 
to  retain  Cape  Breton  Island,  which  commands  the  entrance  to 
the  gulf  and  river  of  St.  Lawrence.  The  French  now  determined 
to  fortify  and  garrison  the  place  as  a  means  of  guarding  the  ap- 
proaches of  Canada  and  of  furnishing  a  base  for  attacking  the 
English  colonies  in  the  event  of  another  war.  Accordingly  on 
the  southeastern  part  of  the  island,  at  a  place  well  chosen  for  its 
strategic  importance,  a  mighty  fortress  was  erected,  to  which  was 
given  the  name  of  Louisburg,  in  honor  of  the  king.  It  cost  not 
less  than  six  million  dollars,  and  was  twenty-five  years  in  course 
of  construction.  It  was  flanked  by  solid  walls  of  masonry,  from 
the  tops  of  which  scores  of  cannon  frowned  and  was  altogether 
the  strongest  fortress  in  America,  with  the  possible  exception  of 
Quebec,  which  owed  its  chief  strength  to  nature  and  not  to  art,  and 
was  believed  to  be  impregnable  against  attack. 

Scarcely  was  this  great  defensive  stronghold  completed  when 
France  and  England  were  again  at  war,  and  the  conflict,  as  for- 
merly, was  soon  extended  to  their  colonies  in  the  New  World.  The 
contest  which  now  broke  out  was  known  in  Europe  as  the  War 
of  the  Austrian  Succession.  In  1740  the  Austrian  Emperor, 
Charles  VI.,  the  last  of  the  male  line  of  the  house  of  Hapsburg, 
died ;  whereupon  a  number  of  the  European  powers  straightway  laid 
claims  to  certain  of  his  dominions,  although  they  had  solemnly 
united  in  an  agreement  to  respect  the  integrity  of  his  empire  and 
recognize  his  daughter,  Maria  Theresa,  who  had  succeeded  to 
13  Parkman,  "  Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  vol.  i.  p.  177. 


164  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1740-1745 

the  crown.  As  a  result  of  this  policy  of  spoliation  nearly  all  the 
powers  of  Europe  became  involved  in  war  either  on  the  side  of 
Maria  Theresa  or  on  the  side  of  Frederick  of  Prussia,  the  chief 
claimant  to  Austrian  territories.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
England  and  France  were  ranged  on  opposite  sides.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  cause  of  the  war  between  these  two  nations  did  not 
grow  out  of  the  questions  left  unsettled  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht. 
The  quarrel  over  these  questions  had  not  yet  reached  a  climax. 
The  present  dispute  was  a  European  dynastic  question,  and  al- 
though the  American  colonies  had  not  the  slightest  interest  in  the 
issues  involved,  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  their  settlements 
would  again  be  subject  to  the  desolating  and  murderous  ravages  of 
bands  of  Indian  savages.  There  were,  however,  fewer  of  these 
forays  than  in  the  preceding  wars,  but  there  were  enough  to  keep 
the  frontier  settlements  in  constant  terror. 

Aside  from  these  incursions  the  great  event  of  the  war  was 
the  capture  of  Louisburg.  This  remarkable  military  feat  was  con- 
ceived and  planned  by  Governor  Shirley  of  Massachusetts.  When 
the  doughty  governor  proposed  the  scheme  to  the  Massachusetts 
General  Court  it  was  rejected  as  utterly  impracticable,  and  the 
legislature  refused  to  provide  the  necessary  funds  or  ships.  The 
scheme  seemed  audacious,  especially  as  an  undertaking  for  a  single 
colony.  But  the  indefatigable  governor  induced  the  legislature  to 
reconsider  its  action,  and  upon  reconsideration  it  decided  by  a 
majority  of  one  vote  to  authorize  the  undertaking,  a  rumor  in  the 
meantime  having  got  abroad  that  the  garrison  was  mutinous  and 
living  on  half  rations.  Shirley  invited  the  cooperation  of  other 
colonies  as  far  south  as  Pennsylvania ;  but  favorable  responses  were 
received  only  from  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode  Island. 
The  governor  of  New  Hampshire  agreed  to  furnish  500  men  pro- 
vided Massachusetts  would  pay  and  feed  150  of  them,  while  the 
governor  of  Connecticut  promised  as  many  more  upon  the  condi- 
tion that  a  Connecticut  man  should  have  the  place  of  second  rank 
in  the  expedition.  Rhode  Island,  always  on  bad  terms  with  her 
more  powerful  neighbor,  grudgingly  and  rather  tardily  furnished 
500  men.  Massachusetts  herself  furnished  3,300  men,  making  al- 
together about  4,500  men,  mostly  farmers,  fishermen  and  me- 
chanics. 

To  command  the  expedition  Governor  Shirley  chose  William 
Pepperell,    a    well-to-do   merchant    of    Kittery,    and    the    selection 


5   < 


7, 

Z 

< 

- 

O 

-> 

w 

J 

as 

-c 

? 

W 

«>c 

INTER-COLONIAL     WARS  165 

1745 

proved  to  be  most  wise.  A  little  fleet  of  twenty  or  thirty  vessels, 
carrying  not  more  than  150  guns,  was  collected  and  placed  under 
the  command  of  Captain  Tyng,  and  before  it  reached  its  destination 
a  considerable  number  of  fishing  vessels  were  added,  and  to  these 
four  British  men-of-war  from  the  West  Indies,  commanded  by 
Commodore  Warren,  were  soon  joined.  Early  in  May  this  motley 
fleet  appeared  under  the  great  walls  of  Louisburg.  Detachments 
of  the  men  landed,  dragged  their  batteries  into  position  with  great 
difficulty  and  laid  siege  to  the  mighty  fortress.  On  May  7  a  sum- 
mons to  surrender  was  sent  to  the  commander,  who  replied  that 
he  would  answer  with  his  cannon.  On  the  23d  of  the  month  189 
of  the  American  force  were  killed  or  captured  while  making  a 
desperate  attempt  to  take  a  battery  which  commanded  the  entrance 
to  the  harbor.  But  this  disaster  did  not  discourage  the  English. 
More  cannon  and  mortars  were  dragged  into  position  and  planted 
under  the  orders  of  Colonel  Gridley,  who  thirty  years  afterwards 
directed  the  fire  of  the  batteries  at  Bunker  Hill.  Under  his  di- 
rection a  deadly  cannonade  was  now  opened  upon  the  island  bat- 
tery with  telling  effect.  Gradually  the  place  became  untenable, 
and  just  as  Warren  and  Pepperell  were  preparing  to  make  a  com- 
bined attack  the  fortress  surrendered  on  Tune  17,  1745,  six  weeks 
after  the  beginning  of  the  siege.  On  the  same  day  the  fleet  sailed 
into  the  harbor,  while  Pepperell  with  a  part  of  his  army  entered 
the  town. 

The  news  of  the  fall  of  Louisburg  reached  Boston  a  little 
after  one  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  July  3,  and  soon  the  slumber- 
ing town  was  astir  with  shouting  crowds  who  were  induced  with 
difficulty  to  believe  the  truth  of  the  report.  Great  demonstrations 
of  rejoicing  were  made  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  a  gen- 
eral thanksgiving  clay  was  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
expression  to  the  popular  gratitude  for  what  had  seemed  to  be  an 
interposition  of  Providence.  In  England  the  glad  news  was  re- 
ceived with  equal  joy,  and  Pepperell  was  made  a  baronet  and  War- 
ren an  admiral.  But  the  news  caused  astonishment  in  France, 
where  it  had  been  said  that  Louisburg  was  so  strongly  fortified 
that  a  dozen  women  could  successfully  defend  it,  and  the  French 
king  refused  to  believe  the  report  so  long  as  there  was  a  shadow 
of  a  doubt.  That  a  handful  of  New  England  farmers  and  fisher- 
men could  take  such  a  place  seemed  incredible.  But  they  had 
nevertheless  done   it.     It  was  more  than  the  French  could  bear, 


166  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1745-1748 

and  so  they  determined  to  make  a  supreme  effort  to  recapture  the 
lost  fortress.  A  fleet  of  sixty-five  vessels  was  accordingly  fitted 
out  under  the  command  of  Due  d'Anville,  and  in  June,  1746,  it 
sailed  for  America  to  undertake  the  work  of  recovering  Louis- 
burg.14  But  from  the  first  the  fleet  encountered  unforeseen  diffi- 
culties, and  soon  after  its  arrival  in  American  waters  in  Septem- 
ber Due  d'Anville  died,  his  successor,  D'Estournel,  committed  sui- 
cide, and  the  enterprise  resulted  in  failure. 

Undaunted,  however,  by  this  failure,  the  French  Government 
fitted  out  another  fleet  under  La  Jonquiere  for  the  conquest  of 
Acadia  and  Louisburg,  and  in  May,  1747,  it  sailed  for  America, 
but  it  was  totally  defeated  by  an  English  fleet  before  reaching  its 
destination.  Six  of  the  ships  of  war  were  captured,  and  a  large 
number  of  its  men  taken  prisoners,  among  them  Jonquiere  him- 
self. Finally  both  nations  tired  of  the  weary  and  barren  conflict, 
with  its  enormous  financial  burdens,  came  to  terms  of  agreement, 
and  in  October,  1748,  signed  a  treaty  of  peace  at  Aix-la-Chapelle. 
It  was  agreed  that  there  should  be  a  mutual  restitution  of  all  con- 
quests made  during  the  war,  and  this  meant  that  Louisburg  would 
be  given  back  to  the  French.  George  II.  is  said  to  have  doubted 
whether  it  was  his  to  give,  considering  the  circumstances  of  its  cap- 
ture by  New  Englanders,  but  whatever  may  have  been  the  facts 
as  to  this  point,  the  great  fortress  was  quietly  restored  to  the 
French  without  the  consent  of  the  American  colonies,  and  of  course 
to  their  great  indignation.  This  act  increased  the  already  growing 
dissatisfaction  of  the  colonists  with  the  course  of  the  mother  coun- 
try, and  was  doubtless  one  of  the  causes  that  eventually  led  to  the 
desire  for  separation.  Nevertheless  it  brought  about  temporary 
peace  and  gave  the  colonists  a  short  breathing  space  until  the  com- 
ing of  that  great  struggle  which  was  to  settle  conclusively  the  ques- 
tion of  British  supremacy  in  America. 

14  Parkman,    "  Half    Century    of    Conflict/'    vol.    ii.    p.    175. 


Chapter  VIII 

THE    FRENCH    AND    INDIAN    WAR.     1754-1763 

I 

THE  DISPUTE 

THE  Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  like  those  which  preceded 
it,  proved  to  be  a  mere  truce  in  the  long  struggle  between 
France  and  England  for  the  mastery  of  North  America, 
and  only  postponed  the  greater  and  decisive  conflict.  The  vague 
language  employed  in  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  with  regard  to  the 
limits  of  Acadia  had  given  rise  to  a  boundary  dispute  between  the 
two  rival  powers,  and  this  had  not  been  definitely  settled  by  the 
Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle.  The  English  claimed  that  Acadia  com- 
prehended not  only  what  is  now  Nova  Scotia,  but  the  immense  tract 
of  land  extending  westward  to  the  St.  Lawrence  River  —  about 
twenty  times  as  much  as  that  conceded  by  French  interpretation.1 
In  pursuance  of  a  provision  in  the  latter  treaty,  a  commission  was 
appointed  for  adjusting  the  rival  claims  of  the  two  powers  in 
America,  but  after  sitting  at  Paris  for  three  years  it  broke  up 
without  reaching  an  agreement  and  only  leaving  four  quarto  vol- 
umes of  allegations,  argument  and  documental  proofs  as  the  result 
of  its  labors. 

Meantime  the  dispute  assumed  larger  dimensions  by  the  claim 
which  each  nation  now  put  forward  for  the  possession  of  the  valley 
of  the  Ohio,  and  the  conflict  was  precipitated  by  the  action  of 
France  in  attempting  to  occupy  the  territory  in  dispute.  France 
based  her  claim  to  the  Ohio  Valley  on  the  ground  of  discovery  and 
occupation.  French  explorers  had  sailed  up  and  down  the  St. 
Lawrence  and  Mississippi  Rivers,  and  had  made  their  way  along 
the  shores  of  the  Great  Lakes  from  Ontario  to  Superior.  The 
principles  of  international  law  as  interpreted  by  the  French  gave 
them  a  right  to  the  adjacent  country  drained  by  the  rivers  flowing 

1  Parkman,   "  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  vol.  i.  p.   123. 
167 


168  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1754 

into  these  bodies  of  water;  that  is  to  say,  the  Mississippi  valley 
extending  eastward  to  the  crest  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  Had 
this  claim  been  allowed  they  would  have  received  half  of  New 
York  and  a  goodly  share  of  Pennsylvania,  leaving  the  English 
nothing  but  a  narrow  strip  along  the  coast.  The  inchoate  title 
thus  gained  by  discovery  and  exploration  was  made  definitive  by 
ihe  establishment  of  a  line  of  forts  and  trading  posts  which  extended 
like  a  great  bow  from  Biloxi  in  Louisiana  around  by  way  of  the 
Great  Lakes  to  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  including  New 
Orleans,  Fort  Rosalie  (Natchez),  Chickasaw  Bluffs  (Memphis), 
Cahokia,  Kaskaskia,  Chartres,  Vincennes,  Detroit,  Montreal, 
Kingston,  Quebec  and  eventually  about  fifty  others  of  less  impor- 
tance. Another  line  of  posts,  more  recently  erected,  and  intended 
to  exclude  English  fur  traders  from  the  headwaters  of  the  Ohio 
and  the  region  about  Lake  Erie,  extended  southward  from  Lake 
Ontario  to  the  forks  of  the  Allegheny  and  Monongahela  Rivers. 
Most  of  these  posts  were  garrisoned  by  French  troops,  and  were 
relieved  at  regular  intervals  of  six  years. 

The  British  claim  to  the  territory  in  dispute  was  based,  first, 
on  the  Treaties  of  Utrecht  and  Aix-la-Chapelle,  the  provisions  of 
which  were  too  vague  and  uncertain  to  throw  much  light  on  the 
merits  of  the  controversy;  second,  on  the  old  "  sea  to  sea  "  grants 
by  which  the  western  boundaries  of  the  English  colonies  were  made 
to  extend  to  the  South  Sea,  or  Pacific  Ocean,  these  charters  being 
granted  prior  to  the  French  settlements  in  the  Mississippi  Valley ; 
and  third,  on  Indian  cessions.  By  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  in  1713 
the  Iroquois  Indians  of  New  York  had  been  declared  British  sub- 
jects and,  at  various  times  during  the  forty  years  following,  bands 
of  these  savages  had  made  raids  into  what  is  now  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois,  and  in  some  cases  had  driven  off  the  native  Indians 
and  killed  and  scalped  many  of  them.  Great  Britain  claimed  the 
right  to  the  lands  thus  "  conquered  "  by  her  dusky  subjects,  and  in 
1744  entered  into  a  treaty  with  them  at  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania, 
by  which  they  formally  ceded  to  the  British  Government  an  in- 
definite extent  of  these  lands  situated  west  of  the  mountains. 
Again  in  1752  another  treaty  was  concluded  at  Logtown  by  which 
Virginia  was  given  the  right  to  erect  a  fort  at  the  "  forks  of  the 
Ohio."  2 

The  British  claims  were  quite  as  extravagant  and  unfounded 

2  Winsor,  "Narrative  and   Critical    History,"  vol.   v.  pp.   487,   490. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  169 

1754 

as  those  of  the  French,  and  had  they  been  conceded  the  French 
power  in  America  would  have  been  restricted  to  a  comparatively 
small  territory  north  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River.  By  the  middle 
of  the  century  the  rivalry  of  the  two  nations  for  the  possession  of 
the  valleys  of  the  Ohio  was  becoming  acute.  Both  French  and 
English  colonial  governors  made  urgent  recommendations  to 
their  respective  governments  to  take  steps  to  occupy  and  fortify 
the  territory  in  dispute.  The  French  Government  acted  first. 
English  fur  traders  from  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia 
were  penetrating  the  territory  claimed  by  France  and  participating 
in  a  profitable  trade,  which  the  French  insisted  should  be  reserved 
exclusively  to  them.3 

Worse  still,  English  land  speculators  were  at  work  and  Eng- 
lish emissaries  were  "  tampering  "  with  the  Indian  allies  of  France. 
To  expel  these  intruders  the  governor  of  Canada  in  1749  sent 
Chevalier  Celeron  de  Bienville  with  a  detachment  of  Canadian 
soldiers  and  Indians  to  the  junction  of  the  Allegheny  and  Monon- 
gahela  Rivers,  where  they  took  formal  possession  of  the  region  in 
dispute  by  nailing  the  arms  of  France  to  certain  trees  and  by  bury- 
ing leaden  plates  with  appropriate  inscriptions  at  the  mouths  of 
various  streams  flowing  into  the  Ohio.  This  performance  was 
enacted  at  the  mouth  of  the  Muskingum  River,  the  Great  Kana- 
wha and  other  streams,  and  late  in  the  nineteenth  century  some  of 
the  plates  were  washed  up  and  discovered  by  the  local  residents.4 

Celeron,  having  thus  warned  all  intruders,  returned  to  Mon- 
treal, from  which  place  he  summed  up  his  opinion  of  the  situation 
in  the  following  words :  "  All  I  can  say  is,  that  the  nations  of  those 
countries  are  very  ill-disposed  towards  the  French  and  devoted 
entirely  to  the  English." 

3 "  The  traffic  of  the  French  in  peltries,"  says  Parkman,  "  was  far  more 
important  than  all  the  rest  together ;  one  which  absorbed  the  enterprise  of  the 
colony,  drained  the  life  sap  from  other  branches  of  commerce  and,  even  more 
than  a  vicious  system  of  government,  kept  them  in  a  state  of  chronic  debility — 
the  hardy,  adventurous,  lawless  fur  trade.  In  the  eighteenth  century  Canada 
exported  a  moderate  quantity  of  timber,  wheat,  the  herb  called  ginseng,  and  a 
few  other  commodities ;  but  from  first  to  last  she  lived  chiefly  on  beaver  skins." 
— "  The  Old  Regime,"  p.  302. 

4  Parkman,  "  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  vol.  i.  p.  48.  Much  earlier  in  the  cen- 
tury Gov.  Spottswood,  of  Virginia,  had  taken  possession  of  this  part  of  the 
country  in  the  name  of  George  I.,  by  burying  bottles  containing  proclamations 
setting  forth  the  facts  of  English  occupation.  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical 
History,"  vol.  v.  p.  483. 


170  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1754 

Meanwhile  the  English  were  trying  the  scheme  of  coloni- 
zation as  a  more  effective  method  of  frustrating  French  en- 
croachments. In  the  previous  year  (1748)  the  Ohio  Company 
had  been  formed  for  colonizing  the  lands  on  the  Ohio  in  what  is 
now  West  Virginia,  and  the  crown  had  been  induced  to  grant  the 
company  a  tract  of  500,000  acres,  "  which,"  said  Governor  Din- 
widdie,  "  are  his  majesty's  undoubted  right  by  the  treaties  of  Lan- 
caster and  Logtown,"  in  consideration  that  a  hundred  families  be 
settled  thereon  within  seven  years,  and  a  fort  built  and  garrisoned. 
Among  the  members  of  the  company  were  young  George  Wash- 
ington and  two  of  his  brothers.  Other  companies  were  formed 
and  other  grants  made,  so  that  by  1757  more  than  3,000,000  acres 
of  Virginia  lands  had  thus  been  granted  away.  The  outbreak  of 
the  war  soon  thereafter  put  an  end  to  the  activities  of  these  land 
companies,  so  that  they  never  had  an  opportunity  of  accomplishing 
the  purpose  for  which  they  were  organized. 

Soon  after  Celeron's  expedition  the  French  erected  and  gar- 
risoned several  new  forts  in  the  disputed  territory  with  a  view  to 
checking  the  English  advance.  These  forts  were  Presque  Isle,  on 
the  site  of  the  present  city  of  Erie,  Pennsylvania;  Fort  le  Bceuf, 
about  twenty  miles  to  the  south  of  Presque  Isle ;  and  Fort  Venango, 
still  farther  south,  near  the  headwaters  of  the  Allegheny  River, 
or  about  midway  between  Lake  Erie  and  the  "  forks  of  the  Ohio." 
A  third  fort  was  planned  at  the  junction  of  French  Creek  and 
the  Allegheny,  but  was  never  erected. 

II 

PRELIMINARY  OPERATIONS 

The  continued  activity  of  the  French  alarmed  Governor  Din- 
widdie  of  Virginia,  and  he  decided  to  send  a  message  to  the  com- 
mandant of  the  fort  at  the  junction  of  the  Allegheny  and  Monon- 
gahela,  protesting  against  further  encroachments.  As  the  bearer 
of  this  message  the  governor  selected  Major  George  Washington, 
at  the  time  adjutant-general  of  the  Virginia  militia,  who  as  a  sur- 
veyor for  Lord  Fairfax,  had  seen  something  of  western  Virginia 
and  of  life  on  the  frontier.  Early  in  November,  1753,  with 
Christopher  Gist  and  an  Indian  chief  called  Half  King  as  guides, 
together  with  French   and  Indian  interpreters  and   the  necessary 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  171 

1754 

number  of  servants,  Washington  set  out  upon  his  long  journey  of 
nearly  a  thousand  miles  for  the  "  forks  of  the  Ohio."  5  After  a 
month  or  more  of  perilous  journeying  through  an  unbroken  wilder- 
ness, over  the  mountains,  across  swollen  rivers  and  encountering 
heavy  snows  and  drenching  rains,  Washington  reached  Fort  le 
Boeuf  on  December  n. 

To  the  commandant.  Saint  Pierre,  the  governor's  letter  was 
delivered  and  an  answer  requested.  The  letter  expressed  "  aston- 
ishment "  that  the  French  should  have  presumed  to  build  forts  on 
lands  belonging  to  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  demanded  to  know 
by  whose  authority  Celeron's  expedition  had  been  undertaken,  and 
requested  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  troops  from  the  newly 
erected  forts.  Washington  was  courteously  received  by  Saint 
Pierre,  who  promised  to  send  the  letter  to  the  governor  of  Canada, 
saying  that  until  an  answer  could  be  received  he  would  remain 
at  his  post.  Having  accomplished  his  mission  Washington  set  out 
on  his  return  journey,  which  was  full  of  incident  and  peril.  On  one 
occasion  he  narrowly  escaped  death  at  the  hands  of  an  Indian  who 
fired  at  him  through  accident,  as  his  assailant  pretended,  and  at 
another  time  he  was  nearly  drowned  in  the  swollen  Allegheny  River 
while  crossing  on  a  raft.  Finally,  after  enduring  hardships  almost 
incredible,  Washington  reached  Williamsburg  in  the  middle  of 
January,  1754,  after  an  absence  of  nearly  eighty  days. 

Meantime  Dinwiddie  had  sent  a  report  of  the  French  encroach- 
ments to  the  British  Government,  and  had  received  orders  to  de- 
mand the  withdrawal  of  any  persons  presuming  to  erect  forts 
within  the  limits  of  Virginia,  and,  if  the  demand  should  not  be 
complied  with,  to  "  drive  them  off  by  force  of  arms."  The  Vir- 
ginia legislature,  refusing  aid  at  first,  finally  voted  ten  thousand 
pounds  under  special  conditions  to  enable  the  governor  to  carry  out 
the  orders  of  the  king.  Two  hundred  militiamen  were  called  out 
and  placed  under  the  command  of  Joshua  Fry,  an  Englishman,  and 
a  graduate  of  Oxford,  as  colonel,  with  George  Washington  as  sec- 
ond in  command.6  Before  beginning  the  march  a  party  of  Virgin- 
ians had  been  sent  forward  to  build  a  fort  at  the  forks,  and  while 
engaged  in  this  work  were  driven  off,  in  April,  by  a  French 
force  which  demolished  the  unfinished  fort  and  began  on  its  site 

5  Parkman,  "  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  vol.  i.  p.  133 ;  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and 
Critical  History.''  vol.  v.  p.  492. 

6  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  v.  p.  493. 


172  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1754 

a  much  more  powerful  one,  which  was  called  Du  Quesne,  in  honor 
of  the  governor  of  Canada,  the  Marquis  Du  Quesne.  Meantime 
the  militia  was  on  the  march.  Roads  through  the  wilderness  had 
to  be  cut  for  wagons  and  artillery.  Streams  were  forded  with 
difficulty,  and  the  mountainous  character  of  the  country  made  rapid 
advance  impossible. 

In  May  the  army  reached  the  neighborhood  of  Ohio,  and  at  a 
place  called  Great  Meadows  a  detachment  of  the  militia  fired  on  a 
body  of  Frenchmen  who  were  lurking  in  the  woods  near  by;  a 
fight  ensued  and  the  French  commander,  Jumonville,  and  nine  of 
his  men  were  killed  and  the  rest  of  his  force  captured.7  The  war 
now  began  in  earnest.  "  A  cannon  shot  fired  in  the  woods  of 
America,"  said  Voltaire,  "  was  the  signal  that  set  Europe  in  a 
blaze."  Such  were  the  complications  of  European  interests  that 
not  France  and  England  alone  were  involved,  but  the  greater  part 
of  the  Old  World. 

After  the  skirmish  at  Great  Meadows,  Washington  threw  up 
intrenchments  at  a  place  which  he  called  Fort  Necessity  and 
awaited  the  coming  of  reinforcements  from  Colonel  Fry.  Before 
they  arrived,  however,  Fry  had  died  and  Washington  was  made 
commander  of  the  regiment,  which  consisted  of  about  300  men. 
After  the  death  of  Jumonville,  his  brother,  Villiers,  took  command 
of  the  French  forces,  which  greatly  outnumbered  those  of  the 
English. 

On  July  4  the  enemy,  consisting  of  some  900  French  and 
Indians,  rushed  out  of  the  woods  yelling  and  firing  their  guns,  and 
at  once  began  the  attack  upon  the  English.  For  nine  hours,  dur- 
ing most  of  which  time  the  rain  fell  in  torrents,  the  fire  on  both 
sides  was  kept  up  without  ceasing,  but  with  the  approach  of  dark- 
ness the  French  proposed  a  parley.  The  English  were  in  a  bad 
plight ;  they  had  little  ammunition,  their  muskets  were  in  foul 
condition,  and  they  themselves,  were  half  starved,  and  drenched 

7  The  precipitancy  of  the  attack  led  to  the  French  charge  that  Jumonville's 
death  was  the  result  of  assassination  rather  than  an  act  of  war,  and  through 
the  treachery  of  a  Dutch  interpreter  Washington  was  made  to  admit  this  in  the 
articles  of  capitulation,  which  were  drawn  up  in  French.  The  French  claimed 
that  the  party  attacked  was  simply  an  armed  escort  with  a  summons  from  the 
commander  of  Fort  Du  Quesne  seeking  an  interview  with  Washington.  But  the 
fact  is  the  French  had  been  lurking  several  days  within  a  few  miles  of  Wash- 
ington's camp  and  had  made  no  effort  to  deliver  the  summons.  Winsor,  "  Nar- 
rative and  Critical  History,"  vol.  v.  p.  493;  Parkman,  "Montcalm  and  Wolfe," 
vol.  i.  pp.  148-149. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  173 

1754 

to  the  skin  with  rain.  In  this  situation  Washington  accepted  the 
offer  of  the  French;  two  officers  were  sent  to  confer  with 
Villiers,  and  presently  they  returned  with  terms  of  capitulation, 
which  Washington  signed  about  midnight.  The  terms  allowed  the 
English  to  march  out  with  drums  beating  and  with  the  honors 
of  war,  and  permitted  them  to  retain  all  their  property.  The  loss 
of  the  Virginians  was  twelve  killed  and  forty-three  wounded;  that 
of  the  enemy  being  somewhat  smaller.  The  morning  after  the 
surrender  Washington's  force  abandoned  the  fort  and  marched  back 
to  Will's  Creek,  fifty-two  miles  distant,  while  the  French,  exultant 
over  their  victory,  returned  to  Fort  Du  Quesne.  Not  an  English 
flag  now  waved  west  of  the  Alleghanies. 


Ill 

RESOURCES   OF  THE    CONTENDING   BELLIGERENTS. 

Before  proceeding  further  with  the  narration  of  the  military 
operations  of  the  war,  it  is  well  to  turn  aside  for  a  moment  to 
consider  the  strength  and  resources  of  the  two  belligerent  powers 
in  America.  The  territorial  possessions  actually  occupied  by  the 
two  contestants  were  not  very  unequal  in  extent.  Great  Britain 
controlled  the  Atlantic  Coast  from  Maine  to  Florida  and  westward 
to  the  watershed  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains.  France  held  Louis- 
iana, the  Mississippi  Valley  and  Canada.  The  French  population 
in  America  in  1754,  including  that  in  Louisiana  and  Acadia,  did 
not  exceed  80,000  persons,  of  which  about  55,000  were  in  Canada. 
The  population  of  the  English  colonies  in  America  was  not  less 
than  1,100,000.  This  disparity  of  population  alone  was  an  im- 
mense disadvantage  to  the  French,  but  it  was  to  some  extent  offset 
by  other  circumstances.  In  the  first  place,  the  French  power  in 
America  was  centralized  and  united.  There  were,  to  be  sure,  ter- 
ritorial subdivisions  of  provinces,  but  they  were  without  local 
autonomy.  When  it  came  to  raising  troops  and  supplies  the  gov- 
ernor of  Canada  was  not  dependent  upon  the  will  of  a  dozen 
local  legislatures,  each  free  to  vote  the  necessary  funds  or  withhold 
them  as  it  pleased.  The  king  had  but  to  command  and  the  French 
colonies  acted  as  a  unit,  a  condition  of  the  highest  value  in  the 
prosecution  of  war.  The  English  power  in  America,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  "  mosaic  of  little  republics,"  each  with  a  large  degree 


174  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1754 

of  local  autonomy,  free  to  grant  or  withhold  supplies  for  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war  as  its  sense  of  right  and  justice  dictated.  United 
action  was  difficult  to  secure,  as  the  appeals  of  Governor  Dinwiddie 
to  the  neighboring  colonies  clearly  showed. 

The  need  of  closer  union  among  the  colonies  for  purposes  of 
mutual  defense,  as  well  as  domestic  tranquility,  was  strongly  felt 
by  the  colonial  leaders,  and  in  1754,  the  very  year  the  war  broke 
out,  a  plan  of  union  proposed  by  Benjamin  Franklin  was  laid 
before  a  congress  which  assembled  at  Albany  for  the  purpose  of 
renewing  the  treaty  with  the  Six  Nations.  The  plan  proposed  a 
grand  council  of  forty-eight  members  to  represent  the  various  col- 
onies on  the  basis  of  their  respective  contributions,  no  colony  to 
have  more  than  seven  nor  less  than  two  members.  The  members 
of  the  grand  council  were  to  be  elected  by  the  colonial  legislatures 
for  a  term  of  three  years.  The  council  was  to  be  empowered  to 
provide  for  the  defense  of  the  colonies,  the  apportionment  of  quotas 
of  men  and  money,  the  control  of  the  colonial  armies,  and  the  care 
of  the  general  welfare.  There  was  to  be  a  president  general  ap- 
pointed by  the  Crown,  with  the  power  of  appointing  military  offi- 
cers, supervising  military  affairs  and  vetoing  ordinances.8  This 
scheme  was  adopted  by  all  the  delegates  present  except  those  from 
Connecticut;  but  it  seemed  to  the  colonial  assemblies  to  give  the 
Crown  too  much  power,  and  was  therefore  rejected.  For  the 
opposite  reason  it  found  just  as  little  favor  with  the  home  govern- 
ment. It  was  the  first  notable  attempt  to  bring  about  a  union  of 
the  English  colonies,  and  of  it  the  historian  Bancroft  well  says: 
"  America  had  never  seen  an  assembly  so  venerable  for  the  States 
that  were  represented,  or  for  the  great  and  able  men  who  com- 
posed it." 

In  addition  to  the  advantage  which  the  French  derived  from 
the  character  of  their  political  organization,  the  powerful  influence 
which  they  exerted  over  the  Indians  was  a  source  of  incalculable 
strength  to  them.  The  French  fur  trader  in  America  had  been 
followed  by  the  Jesuit  priest,  and  while  the  one  bargained  with  the 
savage  for  his  furs  and  peltries,  the  other  sought  to  convert  him  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  faith.  The  French  explorers,  traders,  soldiers 
and  missionaries  placed  themselves  on  an  equality  with  the  red 
men,  lived  with  them  in  their  huts,  adopted  their  customs  and 
sometimes  married  Indian  squaws  and  reared  families,  apparently 

8  Frothingham,  "  Rise  of  the  Republic,"  p.  143. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  175 

1754 

without  any  sense  of  degradation.  The  Indian  fondness  for  dis- 
play, as  well  as  his  weakness  for  spirits,  were  not  neglected.9  Their 
festivities  were  participated  in  by  Frenchmen,  and  it  is  said  that 
no  less  a  personage  than  Governor  Frontenac  himself  donned  their 
uncouth  but  picturesque  costume  and  engaged  in  their  dances.10 
By  these  means  the  French  gained  a  remarkable  ascendency  over 
the  Indians  and  were  thus  enabled  to  enlist  them  as  allies  in  the 
war  with  the  British. 

The  Englishman  showed  an  unwillingness  to  treat  the  Indian 
on  a  footing  of  equality,  and,  moreover,  he  lacked  the  resources  of 
artifice  and  flattery  which  the  French  turned  to  so  great  advantage. 
Besides,  the  Indian  realized  that  the  Englishman  wanted  his  lands, 
while  the  Frenchman  did  not,  and  consequently  cherished  a  sus- 
picion of  the  former.  It  was  not  unnatural,  therefore,  that  the 
Indians  should  have  taken  sides  with  the  French  in  the  war  that 
now  ensued.  To  this,  however,  there  was  a  notable  exception  in 
the  case  of  the  Iroquois,  or  Six  Nations  of  New  York,  who  with- 
stood French  influence  and  cast  their  lot  with  the  British.11  This 
was  due  to  two  causes.  In  the  first  place  the  Iroquois  had  a  tra- 
ditional dislike  of  the  French,  which  dated  back  to  the  year  1609, 
when  Champlain  made  a  raid  into  Iroquois  territory  and  killed 
some  of  their  chiefs.  Secondly  there  was  a  bitter  hostility  between 
the  Algonquin  and  Iroquois  nations,  and  the  fact  that  the  Algon- 
quins  were  on  intimate  terms  with  the  French  led  the  Iroquois  to 
reject  the  diplomatic  advances  of  the  latter,  and  to  become  allies 
of  the  former.12 

With  all  their  hatred  for  the  French  it  is  extremely  probable, 
however,  that  the  Iroquois  would  have  yielded  to  French  seductions 
had  it  not  been  for  the  powerful  influence  exercised  over  them  by 
Sir  William  Johnson.  Johnson  was  a  native  of  Ireland  who  came 
to  America  in  1738  and  settled  near  Schenectady.  Engaging  in 
trade  with  the  Indians,  he  soon  won  their  confidence  to  a  remark- 
able degree.     Fie  adopted  the  French  method  of  social  intercourse 

9  While  Washington  was  at  Fort  le  Bceuf  on  his  mission  in  1753  he  says  he 
found  it  almost  impossible  to  prevent  the  French  from  seducing  Half  King 
by  means  of  gifts  and  brandy  and  winning  him  over  to  their  side. 

10  Sloane,  "  The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  33. 

11 "  Iroquois  "  was  the  French  name  for  the  confederacy  of  Cayugas,  Sene- 
cas,  Oneidas,  Onondagas  and  Mohawks.  In  1713  they  were  joined  by  the  Tus- 
caroras  of  North  Carolina.  By  the  English,  they  were  known  as  the  "  Six 
Nations"  after  1713.     They  called  themselves  Hodenosaunee. 

12  Sloane,  "  The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  pp.  34-35. 


176  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1754-1755 

with  the  Indians,  became  a  master  of  their  language,  married  an 
Indian  squaw,  and  was  elevated  to  the  rank  of  Sachem,  an  honor 
rarely  accorded  by  an  Indian  tribe  to  a  white  man.  In  1744  he 
was  appointed  by  Governor  Clinton  as  colonel  of  the  Six  Nations, 
and  when  the  war  broke  out  he  was  made  a  major  general  of 
British  forces.  He  used  his  influence  with  the  Iroquois  to  turn 
them  against  the  French,  and  to  him,  more  than  to  any  other  man, 
the  alliance  with  the  British  was  due. 


IV 

braddock's  expedition 

The  English  authorities,  both  in  America  and  at  home,  were 
sorely  disappointed  at  the  result  of  the  affair  at  Fort  Necessity, 
and  at  once  began  to  devise  plans  for  retrieving  the  disaster  and 
driving  out  the  French.  The  Cabinet,  at  the  head  of  which  stood 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  proposed  to  take  rigorous  measures  to 
insure  British  control  of  Acadia  and  to  organize  three  expeditions 
to  proceed  against  Fort  Du  Quesne,  Niagara  and  Crown  Point 
respectively.13  Early  in  1755  a  fleet  was  dispatched  to  Virginia 
with  two  regiments  of  soldiers  under  the  command  of  Major  Gen- 
eral Braddock  who  was  to  have  chief  command  of  His  Majesty's 
forces  in  America.  Braddock  had  seen  forty  years  of  service  in 
the  British  army,  had  gained  distinction  for  gallantry,  and  merito- 
rious conduct,  but  he  possessed  personal  qualities  which,  to  a  large 
degree,  unfitted  him  for  military  service  such  as  he  was  to  see  in 
the  mountains  and  woods  of  North  America.  Soon  after  the  de- 
parture of  Braddock  with  his  feeble  force,  a  French  fleet,  under 
the  command  of  Vaudreuil,  the  new  governor  of  Canada,  with 
4,000  soldiers,  sailed  for  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 

Braddock  arrived  in  Virginia  early  in  February,  1755,  called 
a  conference  of  colonial  governors  at  Alexandria  in  April,  and 
discussed  with  them  the  question  of  raising  men  and  money,  and 
plans  for  expelling  the  French.  This  done,  he  assumed  command 
of  the  expedition  and  entered  upon  the  long  march  through  the 
wilderness  to  a  point  on  Will's  Creek  named  Fort  Cumberland  in 
honor   of  the   general's  patron,   the   Duke   of   Cumberland.     The 

13  Sloane,  ''The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  40;  Winsor,  "Narra- 
tive and  Critical  History,"  vol.  v.  p.  495. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  177 

1755 

force  consisted  of  a  detachment  of  British  regulars,  together  with 
several  regiments  of  provincial  troops,  whom  Braddock  contemp- 
tuously referred  to  as  "  raw  recruits."  He  further  showed  his 
contempt  of  the  provincials  by  issuing  an  order  which  withheld 
from  the  higher  American  officers  all  rank  when  regulars  of  the 
same  rank  were  in  the  field,  and  made  matters  worse  by  declaring 
that  whatever  incapacity  the  American  "  recruits  "  might  exhibit 
in  the  presence  of  savage  warriors  His  Majesty's  regulars  would 
be  more  than  a  match  for  them.  Nevertheless,  he  suffered  Wash- 
ington to  attend  him  as  aide-de-camp.  After  a  weary  march  of 
nearly  a  month  Braddock  reached  Fort  Cumberland  in  May,  where 
a  large  body  of  militia  was  already  waiting.  Through  the  efforts 
of  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  had  preceded  Braddock  to  Will's  Creek, 
the  neighboring  farmers  had  been  induced  to  lend  their  wagons  and 
teams  in  large  numbers  for  the  transportation  of  supplies.  After 
a  rest  of  several  days,  during  which  the  militia  was  put  through  a 
rigorous  course  of  training  and  discipline,  the  army  set  out  for  Fort 
Du  Quesne,  one  hundred  and  thirty  miles  distant.  Great  were  the 
difficulties  of  that  march,  for  there  were  no  roads  except  Indian 
paths,  and  the  country  was  an  unbroken  wilderness  covered  with 
steep  hills  and  traversed  by  rough  ridges.  A  force  of  five  hundred 
axemen  had  to  be  sent  forward  to  clear  a  wagon  road  and  construct 
bridges.  In  the  narrow  twelve-foot  road  thus  constructed  the 
army  slowly  made  its  way  over  the  mountains,  sometimes  drawn 
out  four  miles  in  length  and  giving  the  appearance  of  a  gigantic 
parti-colored  snake  trailing  through  the  forest.14 

By  June  18  it  was  within  thirty  miles  of  Fort  Du  Quesne,  but 
was  advancing  scarcely  more  than  three  miles  per  day.  Growing 
impatient,  Washington  induced  Braddock  to  leave  the  heavy  bag- 
gage behind  under  Colonel  Dunbar  and  send  forward  1,200  picked 
men  as  an  advance  corps.  By  July  7  this  body  of  troops  had 
reached  the  mouth  of  Turtle  Creek,  about  eight  miles  from  Fort 
Du  Quesne.  Early  on  the  morning  of  the  9th,  when  the  army 
was  within  five  miles  of  the  fort,  a  force,  consisting  of  some  two 
hundred  Frenchmen  and  six  hundred  Indians  dressed  in  their  cus- 
tomary war  paint,  was  sent  out  from  the  fort  to  meet  the  English. 
Concealing  themselves  in  the  high  grass  and  underbrush  which 
flanked  the  narrow  roadway  near  the  ford  of  the  Monongahela, 
they  waited  until  the  advance  guard  under  Lieutenant  Colonel  Gage 

14  Parkman,  "  Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  vol.  i.  p.  205. 


178  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1755 

had  reached  a  convenient  point,  and  then  at  a  signal  from  a  French 
officer  they  rose  with  a  terrible  war  whoop  and  began  to  pour  a 
merciless  fire  right  and  left  upon  the  terrified  and  demoralized  Eng- 
lish and  Americans.15 

It  seemed  to  the  astonished  English  that  the  woods  were 
swarming  with  savages.  From  behind  trees,  stumps,  bushes, 
bunches  of  grass  and  crags  the  unseen  enemy  poured  volley  after 
volley  into  the  British  ranks.  As  soon  as  Gage  recovered  his  equa- 
nimity he  wheeled  his  men  into  line  and  made  several  discharges 
with  remarkable  steadiness.  But  for  the  most  part  they  took  effect 
only  against  trees  and  stones.  When  Braddock  heard  the  firing 
he  pushed  rapidly  forward  to  the  aid  of  Colonel  Gage,  but  his 
forces  were  soon  thrown  into  the  utmost  confusion,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Virginians,  who  fired  upon  the  enemy  from  behind 
stumps  and  trees,  according  to  their  own  method  of  warfare. 
Braddock  was  unaccustomed  to  the  Indian  manner  of  fighting,  and 
what  was  worse,  he  refused  to  adopt  it  upon  the  advice  of  Washing- 
ton, and  expressed  disgust  at  such  unmilitary  conduct.  Dashing 
to  and  fro,  apparently  oblivious  to  every  thought  of  danger,  he 
endeavored  in  vain  to  form  the  regulars  in  line  and  to  prevent  them 
from  breaking  ranks  and  taking  advantage  of  the  trees  and  stumps. 
Under  this  pressure  the  regulars  stood  their  ground  for  a  brief 
interval,  firing  aimlessly  at  foes  whom  they  could  place  only  by 
puffs  of  smoke;  but  finally  they  broke  in  confusion  and  fled,  their 
scarlet  uniforms  offering  excellent  targets  for  the  enemy.  The 
militia,  more  accustomed  to  the  war  whoop  of  the  savage,  were  less 
easily  terrified,  and  contested  their  ground  for  about  two  hours, 
during  which  time  the  regulars  were  mowed  down  like  grain  before 
a  reaper.     The  panic  was  indescribable. 

In  reply  to  Braddock's  entreaties  some  of  them  replied,  "  We 
would  fight  if  we  could  see  anybody  to  fight  with."  The  ground 
was  covered  with  dead  and  wounded  soldiers,  maddened  horses 
rushed  neighing  about  the  field,  while  the  roar  of  cannon  and  the 
clatter  of  musketry  added  further  to  the  terror  caused  by  the 
hideous  yells  of  Indian  savages.  Braddock's  courage  never  de- 
serted him.  He  was  always  in  the  thickest  of  the  fight.  Four 
horses  were  shot  under  him,  and  while  dashing  forward  on  the 

1C  The  ambush  theory  is  questioned  by  some  authorities.  Thwaites  in  his 
"  France  in  America,"  pp.  177-178,  says  "  what  occurred  was  a  regulation  forest 
fight  in  which  the  French  and  their  allies  flanked  the  British  on  either  side." 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  179 

1755 

fifth  he  was  mortally  wounded  by  a  bullet  which  entered  his  lung. 
Carried  to  the  rear  he  died  a  few  days  later  and  was  buried  in  the 
middle  of  the  road.  Washington,  too,  barely  escaped,  for  two 
horses  were  shot  under  him,  and  four  bullets  tore  his  clothes  to 
pieces.  Out  of  86  officers,  63  were  killed  or  disabled,  while  of 
I-373  men,  but  few  more  than  400  escaped  unhurt.  The  losses 
of  the  enemy  were  insignificant,  being  about  30  killed  and  as  many 
wounded.  Among  the  killed  on  the  English  side  were  Sir  Peter 
Halket  and  young  Shirley,  secretary  of  General  Braddock  and  son 
of  Governor  Shirley  of  Massachusetts.  Among  the  wounded  were 
Horatio  Gates  and  Thomas  Gage,  well  known  names  in  the  history 
of  the  Revolution. 

After  the  fall  of  Braddock  the  army  retreated  in  utter  rout. 
The  arrival  of  the  fugitives  at  Dunbar's  Camp  with  the  tidings 
of  defeat  threw  the  camp  into  commotion,  and  orders  were  at  once 
given  that  the  wagons,  stores  and  ammunition  should  be  destroyed, 
to  prevent  their  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  The  order 
was  carried  out  and  hundreds  of  wagons  were  burned,  scores  of 
cannon  disabled,  many  barrels  of  gunpowder  thrown  into  the  river, 
and  large  quantities  of  provisions  scattered  through  the  woods  and 
swamps.  This  done,  the  depleted,  disorganized  and  disheartened 
army  took  up  its  return  march  for  Fort  Cumberland,  sixty  miles 
distant.  Thus  ended  the  first  attempt  to  expel  the  French  from 
the  Ohio  Valley. 

V 

EXPULSION   OF   THE   ACADIANS 

A  tragic  feature  of  the  war  was  the  expulsion  by  the  British 
authorities  of  the  Acadians  from  Nova  Scotia.  This  province,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  settled  by  the  French  in  1604,  three  years  before 
the  first  English  settlement  in  America,  and  through  all  the 
changes  of  a  century  and  a  half  it  had  remained  largely  French 
in  race,  religion,  manners  and  customs.  By  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht 
of  1713,  Acadia,  with  indefinite  boundaries,  was  ceded  to  England; 
but  the  treaty  contained  a  stipulation  which  relieved  the  French 
inhabitants  from  taking  up  arms  against  France  in  any  war  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  that  country.  During  the  forty  years 
they  had  lived  under  British  rule  they  had  increased  in  numbers 
and  had  become  prosperous  and  contented.     They  were  a  simple- 


180  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1755 

minded,  peasant  people,  thrifty,  frugal  and  industrious,  lived  in 
rustic  plenty,  and  were  deeply  attached  to  their  homes.  But  not- 
withstanding- their  quiet,  peaceful  habits,  they  were  a  thorn  in  the 
side  of  the  British,  for  they  were  British  subjects  only  nominally, 
and  their  neutrality  proved  to  be  ostensible  rather  than  real.  They 
remained  devoted  to  the  Catholic  religion  and  were  completely  sub- 
ject to  the  influence  of  their  priests,  for  the  most  part  Canadians, 
who  encouraged  them  to  retain  their  native  language  and  to  refuse 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown. 

Toward  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  British  Gov- 
ernment, fearing  that  France  might  attempt  to  reassert  her  sover- 
eignty over  Acadia,  sent  out  several  thousand  settlers  and  founded 
the  town  of  Halifax  as  a  means  of  strengthening  its  power  in  the 
peninsula.  In  the  spring  of  1755  a  British  fleet,  commanded  by 
Colonel  Robert  Monckton,  arrived  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  captured 
a  number  of  French  vessels  and  expelled  the  French  from  this  re- 
gion and  took  Forts  Beau  Sejour  and  Gaspereau,  the  only  places 
of  strategic  importance  on  the  isthmus  still  held  by  the  French. 
To  the  surprise  of  the  British  they  found  Acadians  with  arms  at 
Beau  Sejour,  fighting  on  the  side  of  the  French,  in  violation  of 
their  neutral  obligations.  They  had  thus  forfeited  their  right  to 
be  treated  as  neutrals,  and  so  something  had  to  be  done  to  curb 
their  French  propensities.  To  order  them  to  leave  the  country 
would  be  merely  to  drive  them  to  Canada  or  Cape  Breton  and  thus 
to  strengthen  the  enemy.  To  place  garrisons  in  their  midst  to 
enforce  their  neutrality  would  require  more  men  than  the  govern- 
ment could  spare,  besides  the  entailment  of  a  large  expense. 

It  was  therefore  decided  to  remove  the  whole  population,  root 
and  branch,  from  the  province,  if  they  refused  to  take  oaths  of 
allegiance,  and  transplant  it  to  various  parts  of  the  country,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  destroy  all  possibility  of  its  ever  giving  the  Eng- 
lish further  trouble.  It  was  a  harsh  decision,  but  the  English  be- 
lieved it  to  be  justified  on  the  grounds  of  military  necessity,  and 
they  proceeded  to  carry  it  out  with  a  severity  and  relentlessness 
rarely  equalled  in  the  sad  history  of  warfare.  A  plan  for  kid- 
naping the  unsuspecting  peasants  was  carefully  worked  out  and 
kept  a  profound  secret  from  them.  In  September  they  were  as- 
sembled under  false  representations  at  their  various  parish  churches, 
by  order  of  Colonel  Winslow,  when  the  king's  proclamation  order- 
ing their  expulsion  was  read  to  them,  after  which  they  were  sur- 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  181 

1755 

rounded  by  the  soldiers,  made  prisoners  and  hurried  on  ships  that 
lay  in  a  nearby  harbor.  Families  were  not  infrequently  broken  up 
by  the  separation  of  the  husband  from  the  wife,  and  both  from  the 
children,  although  the  English  commanders  endeavored  to  keep 
families  together.  The  heartrending  scenes  that  occurred  at  Grand 
Pre  have  been  well  portrayed  by  Longfellow  in  his  poem  "  Evan- 
geline," and  the  whole  affair  has  been  charmingly  described  by 
Francis  Parkman  in  his  "  Half  Century  of  Conflict."  Lands,  crops, 
cattle,  houses,  everything  except  their  little  money  and  household 
goods,  were  forfeited  to  the  Crown,  and  to  insure  the  starvation  of 
those  who  fled  to  the  woods  the  growing  crops  were  destroyed  and 
the  barns  and  houses  burned.  Their  beautiful  country,  smiling  in 
the  autumn  with  well  cultivated  gardens  and  fields  of  waving  grain, 
was  left  not  only  a  solitude,  but  a  desert.  Once  on  board  the 
English  vessels  they  were  carried  away  to  distant  provinces  of  the 
British  colonial  empire.  More  than  a  thousand  were  sent  to  Massa- 
chusetts, where  they  long  remained  a  burden  on  the  public.  Their 
wretched  condition  of  course  excited  commiseration,  but  the  New 
England  intolerance  for  Catholicism  was  too  great  to  make  the 
exiles  welcome  guests,  and  they  were  regarded  with  suspicion.  The 
governors  of  several  States  refused  to  receive  them,  and  the  ships 
bearing  them  were  forcibly  turned  back.  Some  were  sent  to  Penn- 
sylvania, some  to  far-away  Georgia,  and  others  to  the  West  Indies 
—  altogether  about  7,000  being  carried  off.10  Many  resigned  them- 
selves to  their  fate,  while  others  yearned  for  their  former  homes 
and  endeavored  to  return  to  Acadia  or  to  Canada.  In  some  cases 
the  colonial  assembles,  only  too  anxious  to  be  rid  of  Papists,  de- 
frayed the  expenses  of  their  transportation.  Several  hundred  who 
were  sent  to  Georgia  built  rude  boats  and  tried  to  reach  the  Bay 
of  Fundy.  Some  were  sent  to  England  and  France,  while  some 
made  their  way  to  the  French  province  of  Louisiana,  where  their  de- 
scendants are  still  found,  constituting  a  numerous  and  distinct  popu- 
lation. Of  those  who  were  deported  only  an  insignificant  portion 
ever  lived  to  see  Acadia  again,  while  many  died  broken-hearted. 

It  is  difficult  for  the  impartial  historian  to  find  justification  for 
so  severe  and  harsh  a  policy.  As  a  military  measure  it  was  with- 
out precedent  in  modern  times,  and  must  always  remain  a  dark 

10  As  late  as  1762  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  turned  back  five 
transports  loaded  with  these  unfortunate  persons.  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and 
Critical  History,"  vol.  v.  p.  417. 


182  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1755 

spot  in  the  history  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  often  claimed,  however, 
that  the  provocation  of  the  English  was  not  inconsiderable,  and 
that  they  did  not  take  this  extreme  step  until  every  resource  of 
patience  and  persuasion  had  been  tried  in  vain  to  induce  the  Aca- 
dians  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  and  preserve  a  neutral  attitude. 
As  long  as  they  remained  in  Nova  Scotia  they  were  deemed  a 
source  of  perpetual  danger  to  the  English  colonists,  and  kept  the 
English  constantly  filled  with  a  feeling  of  insecurity.17 


VI 

ENGLISH   DISASTERS  AND   FAILURES 

The  disaster  at  Fort  Du  Quesne  was  a  sore  disappointment  to 
the  Newcastle  ministry  and  caused  general  dismay  throughout  the 
English  settlements  in  America,  for  it  left  the  people  of  the  middle 
colonies  exposed  to  the  savage  raids  of  the  Indians  and  their  French 
allies.  They  wrere  quickly  aroused  to  this  danger,  and  the  legisla- 
tures of  Pennsylvania  and  Virginia  at  once  appropriated  large  sums 
for  defense,  while  the  neighboring  colonies  offered  to  furnish  men 
and  supplies  to  the  extent  of  their  ability. 

Braddock's  defeat  also  spoiled  another  well-laid  scheme  of  the 
British  authorities  —  the  expedition  against  Fort  Niagara.  This 
place  was  the  center  of  the  fur  trade  in  the  lake  region  and  con- 
stituted an  important  link  in  the  chain  of  posts  from  the  St.  Law- 
rence to  the  Ohio.  Governor  William  Shirley,  of  Massachusetts, 
with  some  good  regulars,  militiamen  and  Indians,  had  already  un- 
dertaken to  capture  the  fort,  expecting  to  be  joined  by  Braddock's 
army  after  the  latter  had  taken  Fort  Du  Quesne.  He  had  set  out 
from  Albany  early  in  the  summer,  and  after  a  long  and  toilsome 
march  through  the  wilderness  of  western  New  York,  reached  Os- 
wego, on  Lake  Ontario,   with  the  expectation  of  embarking  for 

17  Parkman,  '"Half  Century  of  Conflict,"  ch.  viii. ;  Sloane,  "The  French 
War  and  the  Revolution,"  pp.  46-48;  Winsor,  ''Narrative  and  Critical  History," 
vol.  v.  pp.  415-417.  This  melancholy  subject  is  of  too  great  extent  to  be  ade- 
quately examined  in  the  limits  of  a  few  pages.  The  most  scholarly  as  well  as 
the  most  patient  investigation  of  this  intricate  question  is  comprised  in  the  two 
volumes  by  Edouard  Richard,  a  great  grandson  of  one  of  the  transported  Acad- 
ians.  This  author's  conclusions  are  not  in  perfect  harmony  with  our  text  or 
with  the  opinions  of  many  previous  writers.  See  "  Acadia,  Missing  Links  of  a 
Lost  Chapter  in  American  History." 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  183 

1755 

Niagara.  Here  he  fitted  out  a  number  of  vessels  and  made  great 
preparation  for  the  advance  on  Niagara,  but  at  this  juncture  came 
the  discouraging  news  of  Braddock's  defeat,  in  addition  to  in- 
numerable delays  occasioned  by  heavy  rains  and  other  obstacles. 
On  account  of  the  lateness  of  the  season,  therefore,  it  was  decided 
to  abandon  the  expedition,  and  this  was  accordingly  done  after 
building  a  fort  and  leaving  a  garrison  of  seven  hundred  men  to 
defend  it. 

It  now  began  to  look  as  if  the  first  year  of  the  war  would  end 
in  total  failure  so  far  as  the  English  were  concerned,  but  for- 
tunately they  were  saved  from  this  by  a  victory  over  the  French 
in  northern  New  York.  As  has  been  said,  the  fort,  Crown  Point, 
on  the  west  shore  of  Lake  Champlain,  or,  as  the  French  called 
it,  Lake  Sacrament,  was,  with  Du  Quesne  and  Niagara,  one  of  the 
objective  points  in  the  British  programme.  It  stood  as  a  gateway 
on  the  road  to  Canada,  and  was  a  place  of  some  strategic  impor- 
tance. William  Johnson,  the  great  friend  of  the  Iroquois,  was 
selected  to  lead  the  expedition  against  the  fort,  with  General  Phin- 
eas  Lyman  of  Connecticut  as  second  in  command.  Among  the 
officers  were  Israel  Putnam  and  John  Stark,  afterwards  famous 
generals  in  the  Revolution,  and  Colonel  Ephraim  Williams,  the 
founder  of  Williams  College.  Johnson  succeeded  in  raising  nearly 
4,000  men,  mainly  New  England  militiamen,  and  marched  up  to  the 
shores  of  Lake  George,  while  the  opposing  French  army,  consisting 
of  some  3,000  men,  including  700  Indians,  and  commanded  by 
Baron  Dieskau,  pushed  down  from  Montreal  and  made  ready  to 
attack  him. 

The  advance  guards  of  the  two  armies  met  on  September  8, 
at  a  place  some  distance  south  of  Crown  Point,  a  battle  ensued, 
and  Dieskau  was  defeated  and  mortally  wounded.  His  troops 
thereupon  fled  in  terror  back  to  Crown  Point,  while  Dieskau  himself 
was  taken  prisoner.  The  loss  of  the  French  was  about  1,000  men; 
that  of  the  English  about  300.  Johnson  was  knighted  by  the 
Crown  and  given  £5,000  by  Parliament  as  a  reward  for  his  serv- 
ices; but  General  Lyman  of  Connecticut  claimed  the  chief  honor, 
on  the  ground  that  while  Johnson  lay  wounded  in  his  tent  he 
forced  the  rout  of  the  French;  however,  Johnson  did  not  even 
mention  Lyman's  name  in  his  report.18 

18  Winsor,    "  Narrative    and    Critical    History,"    vol.    v.    p.    504 ;    Parkman, 
"  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  vol.  i.  p.  316. 


184  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1755-1756 

Although  receiving  reinforcements,  Johnson  made  no  attempt 
to  follow  up  his  victory  by  an  advance  on  Crown  Point,  but 
against  the  advice  of  Lyman,  timidly  suffered  the  French  to  erect 
Fort  Ticonderoga  near  by,  while  he  withdrew  his  army  to  the 
south.  He  was  accused  by  many  in  New  England  of  incapacity, 
and  apparently  the  charges  were  not  without  foundation.  Thus  the 
year  1755  ended  with  the  outlook  for  the  English  anything  but 
encouraging.  They  had  sustained  one  overwhelming  defeat,  had 
met  with  utter  failure  in  the  Niagara  expedition,  and  had,  after  a 
decisive  victory  on  Lake  George,  neglected  to  follow  it  up  and  reap 
the  fruits  which  it  offered. 

The  next  year  (1756)  saw  formal  declarations  of  war  by  both 
belligerents  —  after  war  had  been  in  actual  existence  for  two  years 
—  and  renewed  preparations  for  the  prosecution  of  hostilities  in 
America.  The  Earl  of  Loudon  was  made  commander-in-chief  of 
the  British  forces  in  America,  with  General  Abercrombie  as  second 
in  command.  General  Montcalm  was  made  commander  of  the 
French  forces,  to  succeed  the  dying  Dieskau,  and,  while  the  Eng- 
lish were  pursuing  a  policy  of  masterly  inactivity,  he  marched  upon 
the  fort  which  Shirley  had  built  and  garrisoned  at  Oswego,  and  in 
August  captured  it,  together  with  about  1,600  prisoners.  Some 
of  these  unfortunates  were  tomahawked  by  drunken  savages,  and 
about  100  pieces  of  artillery  and  considerable  ammunition  were 
taken. 

It  was  the  most  important  victory  that  the  French  arms  had 
yet  achieved  in  America,  but  the  French  success  was  partially 
offset  by  the  erection  of  a  British  fort  on  the  Tennessee  to  guard 
Georgia  and  the  Carolinas  against  incursions  of  the  French  from 
their  posts  east  of  the  Mississippi.  The  destruction  also  of  Kittan- 
ning,  an  Indian  village  some  fifty  miles  north  of  Fort  Du  Quesne  on 
the  Allegheny  River,  served  further  to  offset  in  a  small  way  the 
French  victory  at  Oswego.  From  Kittanning  Indian  raids  had 
been  made  upon  the  frontier  settlements  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
many  of  the  inhabitants  massacred  or  carried  away  into  captivity. 
It  was  finally  taken  by  a  militiaman.  Captain  John  Armstrong,  who, 
with  a  party  of  300  frontiersmen,  pushed  his  way  through  the 
wilderness  in  September  and  fell  upon  the  town  in  the  early  morn- 
ing, taking  the  Indians  unawares  just  as  they  were  closing  a 
night  of  festivities.  After  a  hot  and  stubborn  fight  the  Indians 
were  badly  routed  and  their  town  utterly  destroyed,  together  with  a 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR 


185 


1756-1757 


quantity  of  ammunition  which  they  declared  was  sufficient  for  a 
ten  years'  war  with  the  English. 

Throughout  the  winter  which  followed  hostilities  were  sus- 
pended with  the  exception  of  a  few  raids  upon  the  enemy  under- 
taken by  partisan  bands  from  New  England  or  from  the  forts  in 
New  York.  An  unsuccessful  attempt  was  also  made  by  a  French 
party  to  strike  a  blow  against  the  fort  at  the  head  of  Lake  George, 


•  MAP  OFTHE  • 

SIEGE  OFJL0UISBURG 


REFERENCES 
A  french  EarthworKs 
B  first  Landing  Place 
C  English  Redoubts 

D  English  Batteries 

EPond 

F  S\egeWorKs 

6  Barachois 

H  Grand  Battery 

I  Island  Battery 


but  the  garrison  proved  too  strong,  and  their  assailants  were  com- 
pelled to  retreat  without  inflicting  any  greater  injury  than  the 
burning  of  neighboring  houses  and  the  desolation  of  the  adjacent 
country. 

The  military  operations  of  1757  were  even  less  successful  from 
the  English  standpoint  than  those  of  the  preceding  year.  It  was 
indeed  a  year  of  humiliation  and  disaster.19  One  of  the  principal 
objects  of  the  war  was  the  capture  of  Louisburg,  the  impregnable 
fortress  on  Cape  Breton  Island,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been 
taken  by  Pepperwell  and  his  New  England  militiamen  in  1745  and 


19  Thwaites,    "  France    in    America,"    p.    215. 


186  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1757 

restored  to  France  by  the  Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  to  the  great 
chagrin  of  the  New  Englanders.  Loudon  planned  to  lead  an  at- 
tack upon  the  stronghold,  but  his  preparations  were  characterized 
by  extraordinary  tardiness  and  inactivity.  Finally,  he  embarked 
from  New  York  with  a  large  fleet,  and  reached  Halifax  in  June, 
where  he  was  joined  by  a  squadron  from  England,  his  effective 
strength  consisting  altogether  of  ten  or  twelve  thousand  men  and 
sixteen  vessels.  The  French,  having  apparently  learned  of  his 
coming,  had  assembled  a  larger  fleet  at  Louisburg  and  were  await- 
ing the  attack.  Loudon  lacked  Pepperell's  capacity  and  courage 
and  was  easily  persuaded  to  believe  that  an  attack  would  result  in 
his  defeat.  He  accordingly  abandoned  the  expedition  and  returned 
with  his  fleet  to  New  York,  while  the  English  squadron  was  dis- 
abled by  a  storm. 

The  almost  disgraceful  ending  of  the  Louisburg  expedition 
was  followed  by  a  disaster  to  the  English  on  Lake  George.  Here, 
after  the  defeat  of  the  French  at  Crown  Point  in  1755,  Johnson  had 
erected  a  fort  which  he  named  William  Henry  for  one  of  the 
king's  grandsons.  In  order  to  supply  troops  for  the  expedition 
against  Louisburg,  the  militia  from  New  York  had  been  largely 
drawn  off.  Taking  advantage  of  this  situation,  Montcalm,  having 
in  the  meantime  descended  from  Canada  with  nearly  8,000  men, 
of  whom  about  one-fourth  were  savages  who  desolated  the  country 
as  they  marched  and  inflicted  unspeakable  atrocities  on  the  inhab- 
itants, fell  suddenly  upon  the  English  fort.  It  was  garrisoned  by 
about  2,000  men  under  the  command  of  Colonel  Munro,  a  coura- 
geous and  capable  officer,  who  refused  to  surrender.  There  were 
2,600  men  near  by  at  Fort  Edward,  under  the  command  of  Colonel 
Webb,  and  to  this  officer  Munro  sent  appeals  in  vain  for  reinforce- 
ments. For  four  or  five  days  the  brave  garrison  held  out,  but  was 
finally  forced  to  surrender,  being  accorded  generous  terms  and 
allowed  to  march  Out  with  the  honors  of  war. 

Montcalm  found  it  impossible  to  compel  the  Indians  to  observe 
the  terms  of  the  treaty,  although  he  had  exacted  from  the  chiefs  a 
promise  of  obedience.  Disappointed  at  not  finding  plunder  in  the 
fort,  they  turned  upon  the  sick  and  wounded  left  there,  murdered 
them  in  cold  blood,  and  horribly  mutilated  their  bodies.  Proceed- 
ing early  next  morning  to  the  camp,  partly  intoxicated  with  rum, 
they  began  the  work  of  butchering  the  soldiers  who  were  waiting 
to  be  marched  out.     In  vain  did  Montcalm  appeal  to  his  blood- 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  187 

1757 

thirsty  allies  to  spare  the  English  who  were  under  his  protection; 
he  even  begged  them  to  kill  him  instead.  But  neither  threats  nor 
entreaties,  nor  the  promise  of  presents,  could  restrain  them,  and 
so  they  kept  on  with  their  bloody  work  until  seventy  or  eighty 
persons,  including  a  number  of  women  and  children,  had  been 
massacred.  Two  hundred  prisoners  and  a  quantity  of  plunder  were 
carried  away,  the  fort  was  razed  to  the  ground  and  the  ruins,  with 
the  dead  bodies  of  the  slain,  were  heaped  in  a  vast  pile  and  burned 
to  ashes.20 

Thus  the  year  1757  ended  as  the  preceding  one,  in  gloom  for 
the  British,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  people  were  in  despondency.21 
The  war  had  now  been  going  on  for  more  than  two  years,  and  they 
had  scarcely  won  a  single  substantial  victory.  The  record  was 
mainly  a  succession  of  disasters  and  failures,  both  on  land  and  sea. 
To  this,  however,  there  was  a  notable  exception.  In  far-away 
India  the  British  had  won  the  Battle  of  Plassey,  by  which  they  had 
destroyed  the  French  power  in  that  part  of  the  globe  and  laid  the 
foundation  for  a  great  empire  in  the  East.  But  in  America  the 
French  still  controlled  three-fourths  of  the  continent,  including  the 
great  waterways  that  led  to  the  heart  of  the  continent,  the  Missis- 
sippi and  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  the  several  portages  which  con- 
nected them.  Not  a  foot  of  the  disputed  territory  in  the  valley  of 
the  Ohio  or  on  the  Great  Lakes  was  held  by  Great  Britain,  and 
the  only  fort  she  had  established  there  had  been  taken  by  the 
enemy.  The  British  commanders  in  America  had  shown  them- 
selves inefficient  and  incapable.  Popular  sentiment  attributed  this 
state  of  affairs  to  the  imbecility  and  incapacity  of  the  Newcastle 
ministry,  which  had  held  the  reins  of  power  since  the  outbreak  of 
the  war. 

VII 

THE   VICTORIES   OF   PITT 

It  was  now  felt  that  what  England  needed  more  than  any- 
thing else  was  an  able  leader  at  the  head  of  the  government,  a 
man  who  was  capable  of  directing  and  managing  a  great  war. 
Public  sentiment  had  already  found  such  a  statesman  in  the  person 
of  William  Pitt,  the  Great  Commoner,  as  he  was  called,  but  the 

20  Parkman,    "  Montcalm    and    Wolfe,"    vol.    i.    p.    513. 

21  Thwaites,    '"  France   in    America,"   p.    215. 


188  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1757-1758 

king  and  the  ruling  Whig  families  looked  upon  him  with  jealousy 
and  caused  his  dismissal  in  April,  1757.  But  the  popular  en- 
thusiasm for  Pitt  was  irresistible,  and  in  June  of  the  same  year  he 
was  called  to  the  head  of  the  government.  Almost  instantly  the 
situation  began  to  improve  under  his  magic  touch.  He  had  worked 
out  well-conceived  plans  for  prosecuting  the  war  and  now  proceeded 
to  carry  them  out  with  masterly  success.  "  England  has  long  been 
in  labor,"  said  Frederick  the  Great,  "  and  has  at  last  brought  forth 
a  man."  Pitt  proposed  to  take  Louisburg,  Ticonderoga,  Du 
Quesne,  and  finally  Quebec,  and  under  his  direction  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  army  was  speedily  reformed  and  new  and  able  leaders 
like  Howe,  Forbes,  Amherst  and  Wolfe  were  selected  to  carry  out 
his  program. 

In  the  early  part  of  1758  England  became  an  ally  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  who  had  been  struggling  single-handed  against  a 
coalition  of  Russia,  France  and  Austria,  the  combined  forces  of  the 
allies  soon  began  to  win  startling  victories  over  the  enemy,  in 
spite  of  the  great  odds  against  them.  The  moral  effect  of  these 
brilliant  European  victories  upon  the  spirits  of  the  disheartened 
Americans  was  soon  perceptible.  Early  in  1758  Pitt  sent  a  fleet 
to  America  under  the  command  of  Admiral  Boscawen  to  capture 
Louisburg.  It  consisted  of  more  than  forty  vessels  and  had  on 
board  over  eleven  thousand  troops,  nearly  all  regulars,  including 
two  able  commanders,  Generals  Jeffrey  Amherst  and  James  Wolfe. 
On  May  28,  after  a  long  and  tempestuous  voyage,  the  fleet  arrived 
at  Halifax,  and  early  in  June  began  the  attack  upon  the  powerful 
French  fortress,  the  "  Dunkirk  of  America."  The  gallant  Wolfe, 
in  the  face  of  a  deadly  fire,  captured  the  outposts  and  drove  in  the 
enemy's  lines,  killing  and  capturing  120  men.  A  regular  siege  was 
then  begun  against  the  fortress.  Day  after  day  Boscawen's  guns 
bombarded  the  fort,  until  by  the  latter  part  of  July  the  French 
cannon  were  silenced  and  a  breach  made  in  the  crumbling  walls. 
Part  of  the  fort  was  also  on  fire  and  the  condition  of  the  garrison 
was  truly  pitiable.  In  one  day  no  less  than  1,200  bombs  were 
thrown,  and  there  was  scarcely  a  house  in  the  town  that  had  not 
been  injured  by  the  artillery  fire.  In  this  situation  it  seemed  use- 
less for  the  garrison  to  attempt  to  hold  out  further,  and  it  sur- 
rendered upon  receiving  promise  of  honorable  terms.  Altogether 
about  5,700  men  were  made  prisoners,  while  240  cannon  and  a 
large   quantity   of   ammunition   and    stores   were   captured.     This 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  189 

1758 

splendid  success,  really  the  first  of  the  war,  aroused  genuine  en- 
thusiasm throughout  the  American  colonies  and  raised  Pitt  to  the 
first  place  in  the  hearts  of  the  English  people.  Addresses  of  con- 
gratulation poured  in  upon  the  king  from  every  quarter,  thanks- 
giving sermons  were  preached  in  New  England,  and  displays  of 
fireworks  and  illuminations  were  made  in  all  the  large  towns  of  the 
colonies.  It  proved  to  be.  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  successes 
which  were  to  result  ultimately  in  the  downfall  of  the  French. 

It  was  also  a  part  of  Pitt's  programme  to  capture  Ticonderoga, 
an  important  stronghold  held  by  the  French  at  the  north  end  of 
Lake  George,  and  which,  besides  controlling  the  highway  to  Can- 
ada, was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  New  York.  While  the  siege  of 
Louisburg  was  in  progress  a  large  army  was  assembling  in  New 
York  under  the  leadership  of  Abercrombie  and  Lord  Howe,  brother 
of  the  two  Howes  of  Revolutionary  fame,  for  the  purpose  of 
marching  against  Ticonderoga.  The  army  consisted  of  15,000 
men,  of  whom  6,300  were  British  regulars  and  9,000  were  provin- 
cials, mainly  from  New  England  and  the  middle  colonies,  among 
them  being  Israel  Putnam  and  John  Stark.  It  is  believed  to  have 
been  the  largest  army  of  white  soldiers  ever  assembled  in  x\merica 
up  to  that  time.22  Besides,  there  were  about  900  bateaux,  135 
whale  boats  and  a  large  number  of  heavy  flatboats  for  transporting 
the  men  and  artillery  on  the  lake. 

Early  in  July  the  flotilla,  bearing  the  army  and  presenting  a 
magnificent  spectacle,  sailed  down  the  lake  and  prepared  to  attack 
the  fort  which  was  occupied  by  Montcalm  with  about  4,000  men.23 
A  skirmishing  party  had  been  thrown  out  by  Montcalm  and  this 
was  attacked  by  an  advance  guard  of  the  English  force,  with  the 
result  that  Lord  Howe,  the  real,  though  not  nominal,  commander 
of  the  army,  was  killed  in  the  sharp  fight  which  followed.  The 
death  of  this  brave  leader  threw  the  army  into  confusion  and 
produced  a  languor  and  consternation  from  which  the  timid,  in- 
capable Abercrombie  was  never  able  to  completely  rescue  it.  On 
July  8  the  English  troops  undertook  to  carry  the  breastworks  of 
the  fort,  but  were  mowed  down  in  frightful  numbers,  while 
Abercrombie  himself  remained  at  a  sawmill  a  mile  and  a  half 
away,  secure  from  all  danger.  By  his  direction  six  frantic  as- 
saults were  made  against  the  intrenchments,   but  each  time  the 

22  Sloane,   "  French   War   and   the    Revolution,"   p.   69. 

23  Parkman,  "  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,"  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 


190  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1758 

soldiers  were  driven  back,  leaving  in  the  end  about  2,000  of  their 
dead  and  wounded  on  the  ground.  In  this  situation  Abercrombie 
decided  to  abandon  the  attack  and  retreat  with  his  shattered  army 
to  the  south.  This  he  did,  leaving  Ticonderoga  in  the  hands  of  the 
enemy.  His  military  career,  like  that  of  Loudon,  having  ended 
in  failure,  he  returned  to  England,  reentered  politics,  was  elected 
to  Parliament,  and  we  hear  of  him  no  more. 

While  the  English  were  sorrowing  over  their  awful  disaster  at 
Lake  George,  there  occurred  an  event  which  served  to  cheer,  in  a 
slight  degree  at  least,  their  drooping  spirits.  This  was  the  cap- 
ture and  destruction  of  Fort  Frontenac,  on  the  western  shore  of 
Lake  Ontario.  This  daring  exploit  was  accomplished  by  John 
Bradstreet,  who  with  some  3,000  militiamen  marched  to  Oswego, 
which  he  easily  recaptured,  after  which  he  crossed  the  lake  in 
such  boats  as  could  be  procured,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  August 
captured  the  coveted  fort  with  its  garrison  of  more  than  a  hun- 
dred men  and  nine  armed  vessels  —  the  whole  of  the  French  naval 
force  on  Lake  Ontario  —  besides  a  large  quantity  of  valuable  spoils, 
including  60  cannon,  and  some  ammunition  and  stores  intended 
for  Fort  Du  Quesne.  Next  to  the  loss  of  Louisburg,  this  was  the 
heaviest  blow  that  the  French  had  yet  received.  Their  command 
of  Lake  Ontario  was  now  gone  and  New  France  was  cut  in  twain.24 

The  last  military  campaign  of  the  year  was  that  against  Fort 
Du  Quesne.  This  expedition  was  entrusted  to  the  command  of 
General  Forbes,  a  Scotch  veteran,  with  the  able  assistance  of 
Colonel  George  Washington,  who  marched  at  the  head  of  1,400 
Virginia  troops.  To  these  were  added  2.700  men  from  Pennsyl- 
vania under  John  Armstrong,  about  2,000  men  from  the  Carolinas, 
and  a  corps  of  Royal  Americans,  commanded  by  a  Swiss  officer, 
Colonel  Bouquet,  making  altogether  an  army  of  about  6,000  men, 
nearly  all  of  whom  were  Americans.  After  some  discussion  it  was 
decided  not  to  follow  the  road  constructed  by  Braddock  in  1754, 
but  to  cut  a  new  path  through  the  forest  from  the  headwaters  of 
the  Juniata  across  the  ridges  to  a  tributary  of  the  Allegheny.  It 
was  a  shorter  route,  but  was  more  broken  and  required  a  vast 
amount  of  time  and  labor  to  construct  the  road.  The  proposition 
was  opposed  by  Washington,  who,  not  insensible  to  the  interests  of 
his  colony,  which  had  western  lands  to  develop,  insisted  on  fol- 
lowing Braddock's  road.     The  Pennsylvanians,  on  the  other  hand, 

24  Parkman,    "  Montcalm    and    Wolfe."    vol.    ii.    p.    I2Q. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  191 

1758 

wished  to  have  a  new  road  cut  from  Carlisle  direct  to  Fort  Du 
Quesne. 

The  expedition  was  delayed  in  getting  started,  and  when  at 
last,  in  June,  it  began  to  move,  General  Forbes  was  seized  with  a 
mortal  illness  and  had  to  be  carried  on  a  litter  before  his  troops. 
On  account  of  the  additional  delay  thus  occasioned,  it  was  not 
until  September  that  the  expedition  reached  the  neighborhood  of 
the  forks.  Major  Grant  with  800  skirmishers  was  sent  forward  to 
reconnoiter,  and  if  possible  decoy  a  portion  of  the  garrison  from 
the  fort  and  capture  them;  but  he  was  surprised  by  overwhelming 
numbers  and  badly  beaten  in  a  fight  which  cost  him  nearly  300 
men.  At  this  juncture  it  was  decided  not  to  proceed  farther  until 
spring,  but  on  November  12  news  was  brought  to  the  camp  by 
friendly  Indians  that  the  garrison  of  Fort  Du  Quesne  had  been 
diminished  by  withdrawals  and  was  badly  weakened  for  lack  of  sup- 
plies. Thereupon  it  was  resolved  to  resume  the  march,  and  Wash- 
ington and  Armstrong,  with  3,500  men,  pushed  forward  through 
the  forests,  only  to  find  upon  reaching  the  forks  of  the  Ohio  a  heap 
of  smoldering  ruins  on  the  site  of  the  fort. 

The  French  garrison,  reduced  to  five  hundred  men,  seeing 
that  they  were  greatly  outnumbered  and  on  the  verge  of  starvation, 
had  burned  the  barracks  and  storehouses,  blown  up  the  fortifica- 
tions, and  departed  in  various  directions,  leaving  the  heads  of 
their  slaughtered  captives  stuck  on  poles  for  the  delectation  of  their 
living  comrades.  Upon  the  arrival  of  Washington  the  English 
flag  was  hoisted  on  the  spot  and  a  thanksgiving  service  followed 
the  next  day.  Few  campaigns  have  ever  been  conducted  so  suc- 
cessfully from  a  litter  of  pain.25  The  name  of  the  place  was 
changed  to  Pittsburg,  in  honor  of  the  Great  Commoner,  who 
had  made  the  English  triumph  possible.  The  name  was  retained 
after  the  colonies  became  independent  States,  in  recognition  of 
Pitt's  unselfish  stand  for  the  liberties  of  the  Americans  at  the 
outbreak  of  the  Revolution,  and  on  the  site  of  the  ruined  fort 
has  grown  up  a  mighty  city  which  stands  the  most  enduring 
monument  ever  erected  to  an  Englishman  on  this  continent.  Gen- 
eral Forbes  was  carried  back  to  Philadelphia  on  a  litter,  and  after 
lingering  in  great  pain,  died  in  March  and  was  buried  with 
military  honors  in  Christ  Church,  that  city. 

The  year   1758  opened  under  more  auspicious  circumstances 

25  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  v.  p.  530. 


192  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1758-1759 

for  the  English  than  any  preceding  year  since  the  outbreak  of  the 
war.  Since  the  accession  of  Pitt,  the  military  situation  had  under- 
gone a  marvelous  transformation.  A  succession  of  victories  had 
followed  where  hitherto  only  disaster  and  failure  had  characterized 
English  operations.  The  important  strongholds  of  Louisburg,  Du 
Quesne,  and  Frontenac,  constituting  the  left,  right  and  center,  re- 
spectively, of  the  French  lines,  had  been  taken,  and  barring  the  re- 
pulse of  Abercrombie  at  Ticonderoga,  the  English  forces  in  Amer- 
ica had  not  suffered  a  defeat  since  Pitt  assumed  the  reins  of  gov- 
ernment. The  great  West  was  now  open  to  English  enterprise,  the 
frontier  settlements  were  relieved  from  the  scourge  of  Indian  war- 
fare and  the  French  had  lost  half  their  savage  allies.26  Encouraged 
at  the  prospect,  Pitt  mapped  out  an  elaborate  and  well-conceived 
plan  of  campaign  for  the  new  year.  The  region  of  territory  be- 
tween the  lakes  and  the  forks  of  the  Ohio  was  to  be  taken  and 
held  secure  by  General  Stanwix;  an  expedition  under  the 
direction  of  General  Prideaux  and  Sir  William  Johnson  was 
to  be  sent  against  Niagara  and  Montreal;  while  General  Amherst, 
who  had  been  made  commander-in-chief,  was  to  be  sent  against 
Ticonderoga,  after  which  his  forces  were  to  join  the  army  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  under  Wolfe  and  advance  upon  Quebec.27 

The  campaign  opened  with  the  advance  on  Fort  Niagara,  Pri- 
deaux leading  a  division  of  English  regulars  and  American  pro- 
vincials, with  Johnson  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  Iroquois  braves. 
Leaving  strong  garrisons  at  Fort  Stanwix  and  Oswego,  they  em- 
barked at  the  latter  place  early  in  July  and  in  due  course  arrived 
at  Niagara  and  laid  siege  to  the  fort.  Shortly  after  beginning  the 
bombardment,  Prideaux  was  killed  by  a  shell  and  was  succeeded 
in  the  command  by  Johnson.  The  siege  continued  for  several 
weeks,  and,  although  the  French  received  large  reinforcements, 
they  were  compelled  to  surrender.  It  is  a  relief  to  be  able  to  re- 
cord that  the  surrender  was  not  followed  by  an  Indian  massacre, 
such  as  had  occurred  at  Fort  William  Henry  when  the  English 
surrendered  to  the  French  and  their  savage  allies,  although  John- 
son, remembering  the  atrocities  perpetrated  upon  his  countrymen 
on  the  latter  occasion,  did  not  object  to  the  Indians  pillaging  the 
fort  and  enjoying  the  spoils.  The  result  of  the  fall  of  Fort  Niagara 
was  to  make  possible  the  speedy  establishment  of  English  control 

26  Parkman,   "Montcalm  and   Wolfe,"  vol.   ii.   p.    162. 
-7  Sloane,  "  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  78. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  193 

1759 

over  the  intervening  country  between  the  lakes  and  the  Ohio,  and 
it  was  immediately  followed  by  the  abandonment  of  the  neighbor- 
ing forts  between  Niagara  and  Pittsburg.  In  a  few  weeks  not  a 
fighting  Frenchman  was  to  be  found  in  all  this  part  of  New  France. 
Ticonderoga,  at  the  head  of  Lake  George,  was  now  the  only 
remaining  French  stronghold  within  American  territory  claimed  by 
the  Crown  of  Great  Britain.  Preparations  for  the  advance  against 
this  place  were  rapidly  pushed,  and  in  June  an  army  of  over  ten 
thousand  men,  about  equally  divided  between  regulars  and  pro- 
vincials, was  assembled  at  Lake  George  under  the  command  of  Gen- 
eral Amherst.  On  July  21  the  army  sailed  down  the  lake  for 
Ticonderoga,  but  as  it  neared  the  walls  of  the  fort  the  garrison, 
numbering  about  3,500  men,  abandoned  it  and  withdrew  to  Crown 
Point.  Subsequently  the  latter  place  was  also  abandoned  and  the 
French  army  retreated  to  Isle-aux-Noix  in  the  Richelieu  River.  In- 
stead of  following  the  retreating  enemy,  as  he  should  have  done, 
Amherst  settled  down  with  his  superior  army  to  building  a  fortress 
and  constructing  vessels,  until  the  season  for  conducting  hostilities 
was  past. 

VIII 

THE   FALL   OF   QUEBEC 

The  year  1759  was  to  see  the  crowning  event  of  the  war  in 
the  capture  of  Quebec,  the  capital  of  New  France.  This  city 
stands  on  a  high  promontory  overlooking  the  St.  Lawrence  River 
and  occupies  an  angle  formed  by  the  confluence  of  the  St.  Charles 
and  the  St.  Lawrence  Rivers.  In  the  rear  of  the  city  is  a  plateau 
stretching  back  some  eight  miles  toward  the  west  and  known  as  the 
Plains  of  Abraham.  The  defense  of  Quebec  had  been  entrusted  to 
Montcalm,  who,  in  spite  of  a  bitter  controversy  with  the  jealous 
governor  of  Canada  —  a  quarrel  which  was  carried  to  the  court 
of  the  king  for  settlement  —  had  been  retained  in  the  American 
service,  although  his  requests  for  additional  men  and  supplies  had 
been  refused.  His  total  available  strength  was  about  17,000  men, 
including  a  considerable  number  of  Indians.28  Defended  by  such 
a  force  and  possessing  such  natural  advantages  of  position,  the 
city  was  believed  to  be  impossible  of  capture.     Nevertheless,  Gen- 

28  Parkman,    "  Montcalm   and   Wolfe,"    vol.    ii.   p.    202. 


194 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1759 

oral  Wolfe  resolved  to  make  the  effort.  Though  still  a  young  man, 
just  lately  turned  his  thirty-second  year,  he  had  been  in  the  mili- 
tary service  sixteen  years,  had  taken  part  in  the  battles  of  Culloden, 
Sterling  and  Perth,  and  had  given  evidence  of  bravery,  fertility  of 
resource  and  even  genius.  He  had  at  his  command  a  fleet  bearing 
9,000  men,  which  in  June  had  sailed  up  the  St.  Lawrence  and 
anchored  a  short  distance  below  the  city.  Among  the  officers  of 
his  army  were  some  whom  we  shall  meet  again  during  the  Revolu- 
tion, notably  Guy  Carleton,  William  Howe  and  Isaac  Barre. 


SIEGE  OF  QUEBEC 


Wolfe's  army  was  disembarked  and  a  camp  established  on  the 
north  bank  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Mont- 
morency River,  about  seven  miles  below  Quebec  and  within  sound 
of  the  Montmorency  Falls.  The  north  bank  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
from  Montmorency  to  Quebec  frowned  with  French  batteries,  while 
the  opposite  shore  was  lined  with  English  cannon  and  redoubts. 
The  English  batteries  were  able  to  destroy  the  lower  part  of 
Quebec  (that  part  near  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Charles  River)  with 
hot  shot,  but  the  citadel,  of  course,  could  not  be  reached.  For 
weeks  after  Wolfe's  army  had  gotten  into  position  nothing  was 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  195 

1759 

done  but  wait  and  watch  for  an  opportunity  to  strike.  Montcalm 
acted  strictly  on  the  defensive,  and,  much  to  Wolfe's  chagrin, 
avoided  a  general  engagement.  To  be  sure,  there  were  desultory 
operations,  occasional  skirmishes  and  artillery  bombardments,  but  in 
effect  they  amounted  to  little.  From  time  to  time  the  French  at- 
tempted to  destroy  the  English  fleet  by  sending  down  floating  rafts 
of  fire-ships  against  it.  On  July  27  a  raft  of  seventy  vessels 
loaded  with  old  cannon,  bombs,  mortars,  swivels,  and  the  like, 
charged  with  powder  and  ball  and  the  whole  smeared  with  tar  and 
pitch,  was  fired  and  set  adrift  on  the  river.  The  effect  was 
terrific.  The  heavens  were  made  lurid  with  darting  tongues  of 
flame,  while  the  earth  trembled  with  explosions  of  infernal  ma- 
chines, as  the  whole  slowly  floated  down  the  stream.  The  vigilant 
English,  however,  were  able  to  steer  them  aside  or  run  them 
ashore,  so  that  no  harm  was  done. 

Wolfe,  eager  for  a  fight  with  the  French,  crossed  the  Mont- 
morency below  the  falls  on  July  31,  and  with  a  detachment  charged 
the  French  redoubts  on  the  opposite  bank.  But  the  attacking  party 
was  driven  back  and  forced  to  retreat,  suffering  a  loss  of  440  men, 
many  of  whom  were  scalped  by  the  Indians.29  This  repulse,  to- 
gether with  Wolfe's  impatience  and  his  disappointment  at  the 
failure  of  Amherst  to  come  to  his  aid,  threw  him  into  a  dangerous 
fever  from  which  he  barely  recovered.  Plan  after  plan  had  been 
worked  out,  but  had  been  found  impossible  of  execution;  nearly 
a  thousand  men  had  been  sacrificed ;  the  season  was  rapidly  passing, 
and  yet  the  position  of  the  French  was  as  secure  as  ever.  The 
thought  of  abandoning  the  campaign  frightened  him.  He  now 
proposed  what  seemed  to  everyone  except  himself  an  audacious,  if 
not  impossible,  task  —  namely,  the  scaling  of  the  Heights  of  Abra- 
ham. 

Revived  by  the  prospect  of  activity,  he  arose  from  his  sick  bed 
and  began  preparations  for  the  execution  of  his  daring  scheme. 
Abandoning  the  camp  at  the  mouth  of  the  Montmorency,  he  moved 
his  fleet  noiselessly  up  the  river  under  the  cover  of  darkness,  past 
the  batteries  of  the  enemy,  and  landed  at  a  quiet  eddy  just  north 
of  the  city,  ever  since  known  as  Wolfe's  Cove.  A  narrow  zigzag 
path  led  from  the  cove  to  the  top  of  the  heights,  and  up  this  the 

-9  Sloane,  "  The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  87 ;  Parkman,  "  Mont- 
calm and  Wolfe,"  vol.  ii.  p.  233 :  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History," 
vol.  v.  p.  545. 


196  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1759 

men  silently  clambered,  single  file,  through  the  darkness,  and 
when  morning  dawned  Montcalm  was  amazed  to  find  not  less  than 
five  thousand  of  the  enemy  drawn  up  along  the  crest  of  the  height 
within  a  mile  of  the  city  ready  for  battle.  The  indefatigable,  vigi- 
lant Montcalm  had  been  completely  outwitted.  He  had  either  to 
fight  Wolfe  in  the  open  or  abandon  the  capital  of  New  France. 
His  army  outnumbered  that  of  Wolfe's,  but  was  inferior  in  fighting 
qualities,  being  composed  largely  of  raw  Canadian  militia  and  In- 
dian savages."0  The  brave  Frenchman  determined  to  contest  the 
ground  with  Wolfe,  and,  if  possible,  drive  him  over  the  heights  into 
the  river.  Accordingly  he  made  a  fierce  onslaught  upon  the  British 
lines.  The  latter  cooly  withheld  their  fire  until  the  enemy  was 
within  a  few  yards,  when  they  poured  a  deadly  volley  into  their 
ranks  and  sent  them  flying  for  their  lives.  The  route  of  the  French 
was  complete,  and  altogether  the  affair  was  one  of  the  most  heroic 
and  far-reaching  achievements  ever  wrought  by  Englishmen  in  any 
land  or  age.31  But  the  victory  of  the  English  had  cost  them  the 
life  of  their  general,  to  whom,  more  than  anyone  else,  the  victory 
was  due. 

Twice  during  the  charge  Wolfe  had  been  wounded;  never- 
theless he  continued  to  ride  up  and  down  the  lines  encouraging 
his  men  to  do  their  duty.  Finally  he  received  a  third  wound,  which 
was  destined  to  prove  fatal.  Being  carried  to  the  rear  he  refused 
medical  aid,  saying  it  was  of  no  use,  as  his  end  was  near. 

Being  informed  that  the  French  were  retreating,  he  roused 
himself,  gave  an  order  for  dispatching  a  regiment  to  cut  off  their 
retreat  at  the  Charles  River  bridge,  turned  upon  his  side  and  mur- 
mured, "  Now,  God  be  praised,  I  shall  die  in  peace."  In  a  few 
moments  he  was  dead.32  Only  a  few  months  before  he  had  parted 
in  England  from  his  affianced  bride,  to  whom  he  hoped  soon  to 
return.  He  had,  however,  a  strong  presentiment  that  death  would 
overtake  him  before  Quebec  was  captured.  In  the  evening  before 
the  landing  at  the  cove  he  deliverd  to  a  friend  a  picture  of  his  be- 
trothed, together  with  a  farewell  message  for  her.  He  was  also 
heard  to  quote  from  Gray's  "  Elegy  "  those  solemn  lines  of  which 
he  said  he  would  rather  have  been  the  author  than  to  be  the  hero 
of  Quebec : 

30  Sloane,   "  The  French   War   and   the   Revolution,"   p.  93. 

31  Thwaites,  "  France  in  America,"  p.  254. 

32  Parkman.    "  Montcalm    and    Wolfe,"    vol.    ii.    p.    297. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  197 

1759-1763 

"  The  boasts  of  heraldry,  the  pomp  of  power, 
And  all  that  beauty,  all  that  wealth  e'er  gave, 
Await  alike  the  inevitable  hour, 
The  paths  of  glory  lead  but  to  the  grave." 

By  a  strange  fate  Montcalm  was  also  wounded  at  the  moment 
at  which  his  men  began  to  retreat.  Carried  to  the  rear,  he  was 
told  that  he  had  but  a  few  hours  to  live,  whereupon  he  is  said  to 
have  replied :  "  I  am  happy  that  I  shall  not  live  to  see  the  sur- 
render of  Quebec."  He  died  on  September  14..  and  was  buried  the 
same  day  beneath  the  floor  of  the  Ursuline  convent  in  the  city 
which  he  had  given  his  life  to  defend.  His  wish  not  to  see  the 
surrender  of  Quebec  was  realized,  for  it  was  not  until  four  days 
after  his  interment  that  the  city  was  formally  occupied  by  an  Eng- 
lish garrison. 

The  fall  of  Quebec  practically  ended  the  war,  although  it  con- 
tinued after  a  desultory  fashion  some  time  longer.  The  French 
power  in  America  was  broken.  One  by  one  the  most  powerful 
French  strongholds  had  fallen  before  the  skillful  operations  of 
the  British,  until  France  no  longer  held  any  place  of  importance  in 
America. 

Throughout  the  winter  skirmishing  operations  were  kept  up 
by  the  French,  and  in  the  spring  of  1760  a  determined  effort  was 
made  to  recapture  Quebec.  A  hard-fought  battle  took  place  on 
the  Plains  of  Abraham,  on  the  identical  spot  where  Wolfe  and 
Montcalm  had  struggled  the  previous  year,  and  the  English  were 
driven  back  with  great  loss,  while  French  war  vessels  poured  a 
deadly  fire  into  the  city.  Quebec  would  doubtless  have  been  retaken 
had  it  not  been  for  the  timely  arrival  in  the  latter  part  of  May  of  an 
English  fleet,  which  immediately  engaged  and  destroyed  the  be- 
sieging French  squadron.  In  September  Montreal  surrendered  to 
Amherst,  and  with  the  surrender  ended  the  French  and  Indian 
War  in  America.  Still  Pitt  insisted  on  continuing  the  war  in 
Europe,  in  spite  of  the  enormous  burdens  which  it  was  entailing 
upon  the  people  of  England;  but  in  October,  1761,  he  was  forced 
to  resign  and  a  Tory  ministry  in  favor  of  peace  was  brought  into 
power.  The  deplorable  condition  of  France  finally  made  her  anx- 
ious for  peace,  and  in  February,  1763,  the  famous  Treaty  of  Paris 
was  signed  —  an  instrument  remembered  chiefly  for  the  magnitude 
and  number  of  the  territorial  changes  which  it  brought  about.  The 
great  question  to  be  settled  was,  what  disposition  should  be  made 


198  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1763 

of  the  English  conquests  in  America  and  elsewhere.  England  held 
Canada,  the  Ohio  Valley,  which  was  the  original  subject  of  dispute, 
the  French  West  Indies,  Cuba  and  the  Philippine  Islands,  which 
had  been  taken  from  Spain,  who  had  become  an  ally  of  France  in 
1762,  and  various  conquests  in  India. 

The  terms  finally  agreed  upon  provided  that  practically  all  the 
French  possessions  in  America,  including  Canada,  Nova  Scotia, 
Cape  Breton  and  the  Ohio  Valley,  and  that  part  of  Louisiana 
situated  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  north  of  the  River 
Iberville  (now  Manshac),  and  Lake  Ponchartrain,  should  be  ceded 
to  Great  Britain.  After  considerable  wavering  as  to  whether  Can- 
ada should  be  restored  to  France,  and  Guadaloupe,  with  its  profit- 
able sugar  industry,  retained  instead,  the  British  Cabinet  decided 
to  retain  the  former  and  restore  the  latter.  France  was  allowed 
to  retain  only  the  two  small  islands  of  St.  Pierre  and  Miquelon,  in 
the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  together  with  a  share  in  the  St.  Lawrence 
and  Newfoundland  fisheries.  In  the  West  Indias,  Great  Britain 
restored  the  French  possessions  of  Guadaloupe,  Martinique  and  St. 
Lucia,  but  in  East  India  France  was  required  to  relinquish  all  her 
claims,  and  in  Africa  she  lost  Senegal.  In  exchange  for  the  cession 
of  Florida.  Great  Britain  restored  to  Spain,  Cuba  and  the  Philip- 
pines, which  had  been  captured  by  British  squadrons  during  the 
preceding  year.  To  compensate  Spain  for  her  loss  of  Florida,  the 
King  of  France,  out  of  gratitude  to  his  Most  Catholic  cousin,  ceded 
to  him,  through  a  secret  agreement,  what  was  left  of  Louisiana, 
namely,  that  portion  which  stretched  westward  with  indefinite 
boundaries  from  the  Mississippi  River,  and  that  part  east  of  the 
Mississippi  and  south  of  the  Iberville,  including  the  town  of  New 
Orleans.33 

The  result  of  all  these  cessions  and  gifts  was  the  virtual  ex- 
tinction of  French  dominion  and  the  annihilation  of  French  power 
in  America  —  a  fact  which  was  destined  to  have  important  results 
upon  the  future  relations  of  Great  Britain  and  her  American  col- 
onies. America  was  now  divided  between  two  powers:  England 
held  the  eastern  part  from  the  Gulf  to  the  Arctic ;  Spain  all  west  of 
the  Mississippi,  including  both  sides  of  the  mouth  of  that  great 
river.  The  loss  of  her  American  empire  was  a  severe  blow  to  the 
pride  of  the  French,  but  France  was  utterly  exhausted  and  could 
do  nothing  but  accept  the  hard  terms  imposed  by  her  victorious 
'''•'■'•  See    Thwaites,    "  France    in    America,"    ch.    xvii. 


FRENCH     AND     INDIAN     WAR  199 

1763 

adversary,  now  recognized  as  the  leading  colonial  and  maritime  em- 
pire of  the  world.34 

The  "  Old  French  "  War,  as  it  was  called  in  America,  had 
important  political  bearings  on  the  subsequent  history  of  the  colo- 
nies. It  meant  that  the  civilization  of  North  America  was  to  be 
dominated  by  English-speaking  people,  and  that  meant  liberal  po- 
litical institutions  and  rapid  economic  and  political  development 
for  the  New  World.  The  war  was  also  the  means  of  furnishing 
the  colonists  with  valuable  military  experience,  which  in  a  later 
time  was  to  be  of  great  service  to  them,  and  it  taught  them,  above 
all  things,  the  value  of  united  action  in  matters  of  common  interest. 
But  they  had  been  compelled  to  make  enormous  sacrifices  for  what- 
ever gains  they  had  derived.  They  had  lost  large  numbers  of 
men,  while  their  frontier  communities  had  been  ravaged  and  deso- 
lated by  inhuman  savages  in  the  French  service.  They  had  also 
imposed  heavy  taxes  upon  themselves  and  incurred  large  debts  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  war.  Especially  was  this  true  of  the  New 
England  and  middle  colonies,  the  expenditures  of  Massachusetts 
alone  aggregating  $2,500,000,  while  New  York  emerged  from  the 
struggle  with  a  debt  of  $1,000,000.  Part  of  the  expenditures  in- 
curred by  the  colonists  for  the  equipment  of  their  troops  were,  it 
is  true,  reimbursed  from  the  imperial  treasury  after  the  accession 
of  Pitt;  but  these  constituted  but  a  small  portion  of  the  entire 
outlay. 

But  if  the  financial  burdens  of  the  colonies  were  large,  those 
of  the  mother  country  were  much  greater.  England,  in  1763, 
staggered  under  the  weight  of  the  national  debt  which  the  long 
struggle  had  necessitated,  and  the  government  was  compelled  to 
look  around  for  new  sources  of  revenue.  It  turned  to  the  Ameri- 
can colonies,  in  whose  behalf  the  war  had,  to  a  large  extent,  been 
waged,  and  who  were  alleged  to  have  been  the  chief  beneficiaries 
from  the  expulsion  of  the  French  and  the  subjugation  of  the  Indians. 
They  were  asked,  for  the  first  time,  to  contribute  a  small  tax  to  be 
levied  by  the  home  government.  The  manner  of  their  response 
will  be  the  subject  of  another  chapter. 

One  result  of  the  extinction  of  French  power  in  America  was 

to  stir  up  a  great  Indian  uprising  against  the  English  settlements 

in  the  Northwest.     The  Alqonquin  tribes,  who  throughout  the  war 

had  been  active  allies  of  the  French,  now  found  themselves  without 

24  Mahan,  "  Influence  of  Sea  Power,"  p.  291. 


200  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1763 

friendly  protection  in  America,  and,  entertaining  a  strong  hatred 
for  their  new  masters,  the  English,  who  instead  of  treating  the 
Indians  with  flattery  and  cordiality,  regarded  them  as  old  enemies, 
they  secretly  entered  into  a  great  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of 
driving  the  English  inhabitants  off  the  frontier  and  recovering  the 
country  for  themselves.  "  The  English  shall  never  come  here  so 
long  as  a  red  man  lives,"  was  the  message  sent  by  them  to  the 
French  settlers  of  Illinois,  who  were  not  unwilling  to  encourage  the 
uprising,  provided  the  Indians  would  do  the  fighting.35  The  leader 
of  the  conspiracy  was  Pontiac,  an  Ottawa  chief,  whom  Parkman 
thinks  was  the  greatest  Indian  warrior  in  America,  and  who  had 
in  1755  led  his  braves  against  Braddock.  Like  Tecumseh  in  a 
later  war,  he  visited  various  tribes  in  the  Northwest  and  by  his 
eloquence  and  diplomacy  induced  them  to  join  the  conspiracy. 
Others  were  won  over  by  his  emissaries,  until  finally  nearly  every 
Algonquin  tribe,  and  even  one  of  the  Iroquois  nations,  had  entered 
the  conspiracy.  By  concerted  agreement  an  attack  was  made  simul- 
taneously (May,  1763)  on  most  of  the  English  posts  of  the  North- 
west from  Oswego  to  Mackinaw,  fourteen  in  number.  All  but  four 
of  these  —  Niagara,  Pitt,  Ligonier  and  Detroit  —  were  captured, 
the  entire  garrison  of  Mackinaw  being  massacred.  Throughout  the 
summer  of  1763  a  vertible  reign  of  terror  existed  along  the  western 
frontier,  hundreds  of  families  were  murdered  and  scalped,  whole 
towns  were  destroyed  by  fire,  travelers  were  waylaid  and  shot,  in 
fact  the  very  existence  of  the  English  settlements  in  the  West  was 
threatened.  The  plot  to  capture  Detroit  was  betrayed  by  an  In- 
dian girl,  a  fact  which  gave  the  commanding  officer  time  to  prepare 
for  defense.  Pontiac  himself  laid  siege  to  the  fort,  but  after  sev- 
eral months  of  desultory  fighting  he  was  compelled  to  withdraw, 
mainly  as  a  result  of  desertion  from  his  own  ranks  and  the  failure 
of  expected  reenforcements. 

The  war  dragged  on  for  several  years,  until  August,  1765, 
when  Pontiac  entered  into  a  treaty  of  peace  with  Sir  William 
Johnson.  A  few  years  later  he  suffered  the  fate  of  King  Philip, 
being'  killed  at  Cahokia,  Illinois,  by  one  of  his  own  race.  He  was 
buried  on  the  site  of  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  where,  says  Parkman, 
"  the  race  whom  he  hated  with  such  burning  rancor  trample  with 
unceasing  footsteps  over  his  forgotten  grave."  3C 

35  Thwaites,  "France  in  America,"  p.  278;  Moses,  "Illinois,"  vol.  i.  p.  124. 
30 "  Conspiracy    of    Pontiac,"    vol.     ii.    p.    313. 


Chapter  IX 


THE    RUPTURE   WITH    THE    MOTHER   COUNTRY 

i 763-1 775 


CAUSES  OF  THE  DISPUTE 

PETER  KALM,  a  Swedish  trader  who  visited  America  in 
1748,  predicted  that  the  extinction  of  the  French  power  in 
Canada  would  soon  be  followed  by  the  revolt  of  the  Eng- 
lish colonies  against  the  mother  country.1  So  long  as  France 
held  Canada  the  English  colonies  needed  the  protection  of  the 
imperial  government  against  this  old  enemy  which  hung  upon  their 
borders  and  sent  down  bands  of  Indian  savages  to  desolate  their 
settlements.  They  felt  a  sense  of  fright  at  the  thought  of  be- 
coming colonies  of  a  Roman  Catholic  power,  and  consequently  held 
in  abatement  their  passion  for  extreme  local  autonomy.  The  ex- 
pulsion of  the  French  from  America  as  a  result  of  the  war  removed 
this  danger,  and  consequently  lessened  the  dependence  of  the 
colonies  upon  the  mother  country.  No  longer  under  the  necessity 
of  shaping  their  policies  to  secure  imperial  protection,  they  became 
more  self-assertive,  showed  an  increasing  disposition  to  oppose  such 
acts  of  Parliament  as  seemed  to  them  injurious  to  colonial  interests, 
and  soon  came  to  entertain  ideas  of  separation.  France  thus  occu- 
pied the  peculiar  position  of  encouraging  our  independent  spirit 
and  at  the  same  time  checking  its  extreme  development.2 

Occasions  for  the  exhibition  of  the  spirit  of  independence  were 
soon  afforded  by  the  new  colonial  policy  of  the  British  Government. 
It  must  not  be  understood,  however,  that  the  causes  of  the  rupture 
had  their  origin  entirely  in  the  period  subsequent  to  the  French 
and  Indian  War.  Some  of  the  grievances  of  the  colonists  against 
the  mother  country  were  of  long  standing  —  in  fact,  dated  back- 
to  the  middle  of  the  preceding  century.     The  principal  of  these 

1 "  Travels  in  North  America,"   vol.   i.   p.   265. 
2  Fisher,  "  True  History  of  the  Revolution,"  p.  32. 
201 


202  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1733 

grew  out  of  the  commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain  toward  her 
colonial  possessions.  According  to  the  views  of  European  states- 
men in  the  seventeenth  century,  colonies  were  planted  by  nations 
solely  for  their  own  benefit,  were,  in  fact,  expected  to  serve  as 
feeders  for  home  industries,  and  consequently  there  was  neither  in- 
justice nor  inexpediency  in  exploiting  their  resources  in  monopoliz- 
ing their  trade.3  These  were  the  underlying  principals  of  the 
colonial  system  which  prevailed  in  England  from  the  time  of 
Charles  II.  Nowhere  was  this  view  more  strongly  held  than  in 
England,  until  Adam  Smith,  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution,  pub- 
lished his  "  Wealth  of  Nations,"  showing  the  impolicy  of  the  old 
theory  which  was  soon  to  cost  Great  Britain  her  most  valuable 
and  prosperous  possessions.4  The  adoption  of  this  narrow  com- 
mercial policy  really  begins  with  an  act  of  Parliament  passed  in 
October,  1651,  by  which  it  was  provided  that  no  goods  of  the 
growth  of  Asia,  Africa  or  America  should  be  imported  into  Eng- 
land or  the  English  colonies  except  in  English  ships,  and  that  no 
goods  of  the  growth  or  manufacture  of  Europe  should  be  imported 
into  England  or  the  dominions  thereof  except  in  English  ships  or 
ships  belonging  to  the  country  where  the  goods  were  produced  or 
manufactured.  The  obvious  purpose  of  the  act  was  to  strike  a 
blow  at  the  vast  carrying  trade  of  the  Dutch,  and  the  ill  feeling  it 
engendered  ultimately  led  to  a  naval  war.  in  which  the  two  great 
admirals  Elake  and  Van  Tromp  contended  for  the  mastery.5 

The  particular  effect  of  the  act  was  to  exclude  the  Dutch  as 
carriers  between  England  and  the  colonies,  to  give  the  English  car- 
rier the  monopoly  of  this  trade,  and,  by  thus  diminishing  the  ad- 
vantages of  competition,  to  greatly  injure  the  colonies,  as  they 
maintained.  The  products  of  Europe,  however,  might  still  be 
brought  to  the  English  colonies  in  non-English  ships  if  transported 
in  vessels  owned  in  the  country  where  the  goods  were  produced  or 
manufactured.  Thus  a  Erench  cargo  might  be  brought  to  America 
in  a  French  vessel,  but  not  in  a  Dutch  vessel.  By  the  famous  act 
of  1660,  for  "  The  Encouraging  and  Increasing  of  Shipping  and 
Navigation,"  this  latter  advantage  was  taken  away  by  providing 

3  Secley,  "  The  Expansion  of  England "  ch.  i. ;  see  also  Thorold  Rogers, 
"Economic  Interpretation  of  History,"'  p.  323;  Andrews,  "Colonial  Self-Gov- 
crnment,"  ch.  v.,  and   Howard,  "  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,"  ch.   iii. 

4  Adam   Smith.  "  Wealth   of  Nations,"  hook  iv.  ch.   vii. 

5  Beer,  "  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies," 
P-  32- 


THE     RUPTURE  203 

1763 

that  no  goods  should  be  imported  into  the  colonies  or  exported 
therefrom  except  in  English  or  colonial  built  and  owned  vessels. 
This  excluded  every  continental  European  vessel  from  the  ports  of 
the  colonies,  and  left  them  at  the  mercy  of  the  English  carrier,  in 
so  far  as  the  colonies  themselves  were  unable  to  carry  their  own 
imports  and  exports. 

These  provisions  were  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  mari- 
time interests  of  Great  Britain,  but  the  clamors  of  the  mercantile 
class  were  too  loud  to  be  ignored,  and  so  a  provision  was  inserted 
in  the  same  act  prohibiting  the  colonies  from  exporting  certain  of 
their  important  articles  of  produce  and  manufacture  except  to 
England  and  to  the  other  colonies.  These  articles  were  sugar, 
tobacco,  cotton,  wool,  indigo,  ginger,  fustic  and  other  dyeing 
woods,  mainly  the  products  of  the  southern  colonies  and  the  West 
Indies.  Other  commodities  were  added  to  the  list  later.  The  ac- 
tual effect  of  this  provision  was  to  make  England  the  sole  market 
for  the  chief  staples  of  the  southern  colonies,  thus  compelling  them, 
as  they  asserted,  to  sell  their  surplus  in  overstocked  markets.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  northern  colonies  could  export  their  grain,  fish, 
live  stock  and  naval  stores  whithersoever  they  pleased,  provided 
only  they  were  sent  in  English  or  colonial  ships.6 

In  1673  another  act  was  passed  prohibiting  the  exportation 
from  one  colony  to  another  of  various  articles  of  produce  unless  they 
were  shipped  first  to  England,  or,  if  shipped  direct  to  a  colony,  upon 
payment  of  an  export  duty  equivalent  to  the  English  import  duty. 
Thus  a  cargo  of  Virginia  tobacco  intended  for  Boston  had  either 
to  be  shipped  to  England  and  reshipped  to  Boston,  or  pay  the 
English  import  duty  for  the  privilege  of  shipping  direct  for  Boston.7 
Finally  in  1733  Parliament  passed  the  so-called  Sugar  Act,  im- 
posing a  heavy  duty  on  sugar  and  molasses  imported  into  the 
American  colonies  from  any  other  than  English  sugar-producing 
possessions.  The  purpose  of  this  legislation  was  of  course  to  pre- 
vent the  English  colonies  from  importing  sugar  from  the  French 
West  India  islands,  and  to  compel  them  to  import  only  from  the 
British  islands.  As  they  exported  large  quantities  of  merchandise 
and  produce  to  the  French  islands  and  received  in  exchange  sugar 
and  molasses,  which  were  brought  to  the  colonies  and  converted 

6  Chamberlain,    "  The   Revolution   Impending,"  in  Winsor,   "  Narrative  and 
Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  7. 

7  Howard,  "  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution,"  p.  57. 


204.  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1763 

into  rum  or  otherwise  consumed,  the  act  was  a  real  hardship,  and 
had  it  not  been  systematically  evaded  it  would  have  seriously  crip- 
pled a  large  and  profitable  trade  between  America  and  the  West 
Indies. 

Other  laws  were  passed  to  protect  the  mercantile  classes  against 
the  competition  of  colonial  made  goods.  Thus  the  colonists  were 
forbidden  to  set  up  steel  furnaces  and  slitting  mills,  although  the 
iron  industry  in  Pennsylvania  was  already  full  of  promise;  to  ex- 
port colonial  made  hats,  or  send  them  from  one  colony  to  another; 
to  export  woolen  goods,  while  a  variety  of  other  legislation  was 
enacted  for  the  purpose  of  discouraging  the  growth  of  colonial 
industries.8 

In  extenuation  of  this  legislation  it  should  be  said  that  it 
was  not  enacted  in  pursuance  of  any  spirit  of  hostility  toward  the 
colonists,  but  was  rather  the  result  of  the  narrow  and  false  eco- 
nomic theories  of  the  age.  Moreover,  its  effect  on  the  industrial 
progress  of  America  was  not  so  unfavorable  as  it  might  seem, 
for  while  the  colonies  were  compelled  to  find  a  market  for  certain 
of  their  produce  in  England,  they  had  a  monopoly  of  the  supply 
for  that  market.  Thus  the  English  consumer  of  tobacco  was  not 
allowed  to  grow  a  pound  for  his  own  use  or  import  it  from  other 
countries,  but  was  compelled  to  draw  his  supply  from  the  colonies, 
while  the  cultivation  of  indigo,  rice,  and  the  exportation  of  tar, 
hemp,  flax,  ship  timber,  and  allied  products  to  England  were  en- 
couraged by  liberal  bounties.9  From  17 14  to  1744  it  is  alleged 
that  over  one  and  a  half  million  pounds  sterling  were  paid  in 
premiums  on  colonial  goods  carried  to  British  ports.10  As  for 
the  Navigation  Acts,  some  of  them  encouraged  colonial  shipping, 
and  whether  they  did  or  not,  they  were  not  very  different  from  those 
to-day  which  confine  the  carrying  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  its  insular  dependencies  exclusively  to  American  vessels.  As 
to  the  restriction  on  the  sale  of  domestic  made  hats,  it  was  main- 
tained by  the  British  that  such  articles  could  be  imported  from 
England  for  less  than  they  could  be  made  in  the  colonies.  Finally, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  Navigation  Laws  were  never  strictly  en- 
forced, and   the  revenue  acts  brought  little  or  nothing  into   the 

8  For  a  summary  of  these  restrictive  laws  see  Beer,  "  Commercial   Policy," 
pp.  66-90. 

9  Lecky,    "  The    American    Revolution,"    p.    45    (Woodburn's    Edition);    see 
also  Beer,  ch.   v. 

10  Howard,   "  Preliminaries  of  the   Revolution,"  p.   60. 


THE     RUPTURE  205 

1763 

imperial  treasury;  in  fact,  it  not  infrequently  cost  seven  or  eight 
thousand  pounds  a  year  to  collect  two  thousand  pounds  of  revenue. 
The  total  remittance  from  the  colonies  on  an  average  for  thirty 
years  did  not  exceed  nineteen  hundred  pounds  a  year,  the  expense  of 
collection  being  not  less  than  three  times  this  amount.11 

The  evasion  of  the  Navigation  Laws  by  smuggling  became 
notorious,  and  the  British  customs  officials  made  little  effort  to  put 
a  stop  to  it,  if  they  did  not  actually  wink  at  it.  Everywhere  pub- 
lic sentiment  favored  it,  and  juries  returned  verdicts  of  not  guilty  in 
the  face  of  the  most  undoubted  facts.  It  is  stated  by  an  impartial 
authority  that  not  less  than  nine-tenths  of  the  tea,  wine,  sugar  and 
molasses  imported  into  New  England  for  many  years  before  the 
Revolution  were  smuggled  in  violation  of  the  acts  of  trade.12 
Persons  of  the  highest  social  standing  and  influence  in  New  Eng- 
land, like  John  Hancock,  of  Boston,  were  guilty  of  such  conduct, 
and  it  was  not  regarded  as  reprehensible.  Even  during  the  French 
and  Indian  War,  when  the  mother  country  was  straining  every 
nerve  to  defeat  the  French,  it  was  found  that  their  fleets  and 
garrisons  were  systematically  supplied  with  provisions  from  New 
England,  the  highest  officials  conniving  at  it  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  good  policy  to  make  money  out  of  the  enemy. 

After  the  close  of  the  French  and  Indian  War,  however,  the 
British  Government  felt  called  upon  to  adopt  a  new  policy  with 
regard  to  the  administration  of  the  Navigation  Laws  and  Acts  of 
Trade.  George  Grenville,  who  now  became  prime  minister,  was 
resolved  to  enforce  the  laws  strictly,  and  if  possible  derive  a  revenue 
therefrom  for  the  benefit  of  the  overburdened  imperial  treasury. 
The  agencies  which  he  purposed  to  employ  were  revenue  cutters, 
admiralty  courts,  without  juries,  commissioners  of  customs,  writs  of 
assistance  and  naval  forces.  Accordingly,  old  customs  officials  who 
had  grown  rich  by  bribery  were  dismissed  and  new  ones  sent  out 
to  the  colonies  with  strict  orders  to  enforce  the  laws  and  break  up 
smuggling.  But  the  smugglers  had  been  so  long  unmolested  that 
it  was  found  to  be  an  extremely  difficult  task  to  discipline  them. 
When,  therefore,  the  sloop  Liberty  was  seized  for  violating  the  cus- 
toms laws,  a  Boston  mob  rescued  the  cargo,  demolished  the  win- 
dows of  the  collector's  house,  dragged  his  boat  through  the  town, 

11  Bancroft,   u  History  of  the  United   States,"  vol.   iii.   p.   31 ;   Beer,   "  Com- 
mercial  Policy,"  ch.   vii. 

12  Lecky,    "  The    American   Revolution,"   p.   47. 


206  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1763 

publicly  burned  it  on  the  Common,  and  compelled  the  customs 
officials  to  take  refuge  for  their  lives  on  the  British  man-of-war 
Romney,  which  lay  in  the  harbor.  Before  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolution  mobs  and  tar-and- feather  parties  had  become  so  active 
in  Boston  that  the  customs  officials  were  necessarily  compelled  to 
abandon  all  further  attempts  to  discharge  their  duties.  To  enable 
them  to  carry  out  effectively  orders,  they  had  been  instructed  to 
apply  to  the  courts  for  writs  of  assistance,  or  general  search  war- 
rants, empowering  them  to  search  anywhere  for  smuggled  goods. 
This  was  an  extraordinary  procedure,  for  it  had  always  been 
recognized  as  a  part  of  the  common  law  that  the  premises  of  an 
individual  could  be  searched  only  in  pursuance  of  a  special  search 
warrant,  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched  and  the 
things  to  be  seized.  The  writ  of  assistance  neither  contained  the 
name  of  the  person  suspected  nor  described  the  premises  to  be 
searched;  it  was  good  for  an  indefinite  time,  was  not  returnable  to 
the  court,  and  authorized  seizure  at  all  hours.13 

When  Paxton,  the  chief  customs  official  at  Boston,  applied 
to  the  chief  justice  of  the  Province,  Thomas  Hutchinson,  for  one 
of  these  writs,  James  Otis,  who  had  recently  resigned  his  position 
as  royal  advocate  for  the  colony,  appeared  for  the  Boston  mer- 
chants and  resisted  the  granting  of  the  writ  as  unconstitutional. 
Otis's  speech  was  a  powerful  one,  and  had  a  profound  influence 
on  the  popular  mind,  not  only  in  New  England,  but  everywhere 
in  the  English  colonies  of  America.  He  described  the  hardships 
of  the  colonies  on  account  of  the  Acts  of  Navigation  and  Trade, 
denounced  the  granting  of  writs  of  assistance  as  a  species  of 
tyranny  such  as  had  "  cost  one  king  of  England  his  head  and  an- 
other his  throne,"  and  declared  that  taxation  without  representation 
is  tyranny.11  The  speech  stirred  the  people  of  the  country  to 
resistance  as  no  other  utterance  had  done,  and  made  the  speaker 
one  of  the  leaders  of  the  revolutionary  movement,  which  had  now 
set  in.  John  Adams,  then  a  Harvard  student,  heard  the  oration, 
took  notes  of  it,  and  long  afterwards,  in  speaking  of  it,  declared 
that  "then  and  there  the  child  Independence  was  born."15  Al- 
though Otis  lost  this  case  and  the  writs  were  issued,  yet  on  account 

13  General    search  warrants  are  forbidden  by  the  fourth   amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

14  See  Hart,  "American  History  Told  by  Contemporaries,"  vol.  ii.  no.   131. 

15  Ilosmer,   "Life  of  Samuel  Adams,"  p.  44. 


THE     RUPTURE  20T 

1763 

of  the  strong  popular  opposition  which  he  had  done  most  to  create, 
they  were  seldom  used  thereafter. 

A  year  or  two  later  a  note  of  resistance  was  sounded  by  a 
southern  orator,  Patrick  Henry,  who  stirred  the  people  to  even 
greater  depths  than  Otis  had  done.  Henry  was  a  young  lawyer 
whose  early  life  had  given  little  promise  of  success,  and  at  the 
time  of  his  speech  he  had  only  a  local  reputation.  Being  employed 
by  the  local  authorities  to  defend  the  people  in  the  celebrated  Par- 
sons' Cause,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  Henry  took 
occasion  to  denounce  the  action  of  the  Crown  in  vetoing  the  Vir- 
ginia law  relating  to  the  salaries  of  the  clergy,  and  launched  forth 
into  a  general  discussion  of  the  relations  between  the  mother  coun- 
try  and  the  colonies.  The  action  of  the  king,  he  declared,  was 
arbitrary  and  unwarranted;  that  instead  of  being  a  father  to  his 
people  he  had  "  degenerated  into  a  tyrant  and  had  forfeited  all 
right  to  the  obedience  of  his  subjects."  This  was  indeed  bold 
language  for  a  subject  of  George  III.  to  utter,  but  the  cries  of 
treason  with  which  he  was  greeted  by  some  of  his  hearers  did 
not  deter  him  from  proceeding  with  his  oration.16  Henry's  fame 
as  an  orator  spread  rapidly  throughout  the  colonies,  and  the  cour- 
age with  which  he  had  publicly  denounced  British  tyranny  made 
him,  with  Otis,  one  of  the  leading  pioneers  of  the  Revolution. 

Next  to  the  enforcement  of  the  Navigation  Laws  the  chief 
feature  of  the  Grenville  policy  was  the  proposition  to  maintain  a 
standing  army  in  America  and  levy  a  tax  on  the  colonists  to  defray 
a  part  of  the  expense  for  its  support.  Although  the  danger  to 
the  colonists  from  the  French  had  been  removed,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  home  government  a  small  standing  army  was  required  in 
America  for  the  maintenance  of  a  "  stable  government  "  among  the 
French  colonists  who  had  been  subjected  to  British  rule,  while 
protection  against  the  western  Indians  was  now  needed,  as  the 
recent  conspiracy  of  Pontiac  seemed  to  show.17 

The  number  of  troops  necessary  for  this  purpose  was  esti- 
mated at  not  less  than  20,000,  besides  a  proportionate  number  of 
officers.  The  estimated  expense  for  the  military  and  civil  estab- 
lishment was  300,000  pounds  sterling,  one-third  of  which  it  was 
proposed  to  collect  from  the  colonists  in  the  form  of  import  duties 
and  a  stamp  tax.     It  was  said  in  justification  of  the  proposition 

16  Tyler,   "  Life   of  Patrick  Henry,"  p.   48. 

17  Winsor.  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  688  cl  scq. 


208  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1763 

to  tax  the  colonies  that  the  French  and  Indian  War,  so  glorious 
to  the  empire  and  to  the  colonists  in  America,  had  added  140,000,- 
000  pounds  sterling  to  the  British  national  debt,  and  that  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  Kingdom,  already  staggering  under  the  weight 
of  the  load,  objected  to  the  imposition  of  additional  burdens,  while 
the  colonists  in  whose  interest  the  war  had  been  largely  waged 
went  free.  Moreover,  it  was  said  that  as  the  primary  purpose 
of  sending  the  troops  to  America  was  to  protect  the  colonists,  they 
ought  not  to  object  to  bearing  a  share  of  the  expense.  It  was  read- 
ily admitted  that  so  far  as  the  expense  of  conducting  the  war  was 
concerned,  they  had  borne  their  share,  but  that  was  no  reason, 
Grenville  insisted,  why  they  should  seek  to  escape  the  burdens 
which  the  results  of  the  war  had  entailed  upon  the  empire. 

Every  source  of  revenue  at  home  had  been  drained,  and  the 
ministry  now  as  a  sort  of  last  resort  turned  to  their  prosperous 
colonies  of  America,  on  which  the  empire  had  during  the  last  fifty 
years  expended  over  30,000,000  pounds  sterling  for  their  main- 
tenance. England  and  Ireland  each  maintained,  it  was  said,  its 
own  army,  and  the  American  colonies  should  do  the  same.  They 
were  not  to  be  asked  to  contribute  a  penny  for  the  support  of  the 
navy  which  protected  their  coasts,  or  to  the  payment  of  interest  on 
the  national  debt,  a  large  part  of  which  had  been  incurred  in  their 
own  behalf.  To  make  the  proposition  as  palatable  as  possible, 
Grenville  proposed  that  none  of  the  revenue  collected  in  America 
should  pass  to  the  imperial  exchequer,  and  thus  drain  the  colonies 
of  their  specie,  but  that  every  farthing  of  it  should  be  expended 
in  America  for  their  defense,  protection  and  security.  18 

In  explanation  of  the  reason  why  a  stamp  tax  had  been 
decided  upon,  Grenville  stated  that  it  seemed  to  him  to  be  the 
most  equitable  and  easy  of  collections,  and  as  it  had  been  variously 
recommended  by  Americans  years  before,  he  did  not  think  it  would 
meet  with  opposition.  He  stated,  furthermore,  that  if  it  was  ob- 
jectionable to  the  colonists  and  they  preferred  to  raise  the  money 
in  some  other  way,  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him.  He  seemed 
anxious  to  know  the  sentiments  of  the  leaders  of  public  opinion  in 
America  on  his  proposed  scheme,  and  called  in  Benjamin  Franklin, 
who  was  then  acting  as  the  agent  of  several  of  the  colonies  at  Lon- 
don, and  requested  his  views.  Franklin  told  him  frankly  that  the 
stamp  tax  would  meet  with  strong  opposition  in  America,  not  be- 
18  Lcckj',    "American     Revolution,"     ch.    xi. 


THE     RUPTURE  209 

1763-1765 

cause  it  was  objectionable  in  itself,  but  because  the  colonies  denied 
the  right  of  Parliament  to  tax  them  in  any  shape  or  form  except 
such  as  might  be  incidental  in  the  regulation  of  their  foreign  com- 
merce. 19  He  pointed  out  that  they  drew  a  distinction  between 
"  internal  "  and  "  external "  taxes,  the  former  having  reference 
to  such  as  were  intended  to  raise  revenue,  the  latter  to  such  as  had  to 
do  with  the  regulation  of  trade,  and  that  while  they  admitted  the 
right  of  Parliament  to  impose  the  latter,  they  denied  its  right  to  levy 
the  former.  But  this  distinction,  which,  it  must  be  admitted,  was 
wholly  illogical  as  a  matter  of  constitutional  law,  was  not  recog- 
nized by  all  colonial  statesmen,  and  in  fact  both  James  Otis  and 
Governor  Hutchinson  of  Massachusetts  publicly  declared  that  there 
was  no  foundation  for  it.  20 

As  to  the  legal  competence  of  Parliament  to  tax  the  colonies, 
the  highest  authorities  still  differ.  Probably  the  weight  of  opinion 
is  in  favor  of  the  right  as  claimed,  although  it  is  worth  remarking 
that  of  all  the  charters  granted  to  the  colonies,  only  that  of 
Pennsylvania  expressly  reserved  the  right  of  taxation  to  Parlia- 
ment. Aside  from  the  question  of  constitutional  competence,  the 
colonists  opposed  the  Grenville  scheme,  first,  on  the  ground  that 
they  had  not  asked  for  the  troops,  that  they  did  not  want  them,  and 
that  they  were  able  to  protect  themselves  against  the  imaginary 
dangers  which  the  British  statesmen  had  conjured  up  in  their  minds. 
Moreover,  the  French  and  Indian  War  had  been  waged  not  pri- 
marily in  their  interests,  but  in  the  interests  of  the  realm  of  which 
they  were  not  a  part.  By  monopolizing  their  trade  and  commerce 
the  British  government  had  received,  in  the  form  of  profits  and 
other  benefits,  more  than  the  colonial  share  of  the  expense  necessary 
to  provide  for  their  protection.  This  was  their  contribution  to  the 
imperial  treasury,  and  it  was  enough,  as  they  believed.  Taxation 
by  a  Parliament  3,000  miles  away,  in  which  they  had  no  representa- 
tion, would  mean  a  destruction  of  their  liberties,  and  the  reduction 
of  the  people  "  from  the  character  of  free  subjects  to  the  miserable 
state  of  tributary  slavery."  21  But  it  was  said  in  answer  to  this 
objection  that  under  the  rotten  borough  system  then  existing  in 

19  For  a  fair  and  reasonable  statement  of  the  British  view,  see  Lecky, 
"  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,"  vol.  iii. ;  reprinted  also  in  his 
"American  Revolution"    (edited  by  Woodburn),  ch.  xi. 

20  Also  compare  Bancroft,  "'  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iii.  pp. 
79,  82,  85. 

21  Otis,   "  Rights   of  the   British    Colonies   Asserted,"   p.    ioo   ct  scq. 


210  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1765 

England  nine-tenths  of  the  people  of  the  United  Kingdom  were 
virtually  unrepresented  in  Parliament,  and  that  in  this  respect 
Boston  and  Philadelphia  were  no  worse  off  than  Manchester,  Shef- 
field, and  other  English  cities. 

What  the  colonists  really  objected  to  was  taxation  without 
their  consent;  they  did  not  object  to  making  voluntary  contribu- 
tions through  their  legislative  assemblies  to  the  imperial  treasury 
when  called  upon  to  do  so.  "  The  imposition  of  our  own  taxes," 
declared  the  Assembly  of  North  Carolina,  "  is  our  inherent  right 
and  exclusive  privilege."  22  In  the  course  of  Franklin's  interview 
with  Grenville,  he  entered  into  a  defense  of  the  old  method  of 
requisitions,  whereupon  Grenville  inquired  if  the  thirteen  colonial 
legislatures  could  agree  upon  the  proportion  each  colony  should 
raise,  adding  that  it  had  been  shown  to  be  impossible  to  induce 
them  to  do  so  during  the  late  war.  Franklin  was,  of  course, 
obliged  to  return  a  negative  answer.  Reliance  upon  voluntary  con- 
tributions was  wholly  insufficient,  and  the  government  was  deter- 
mined to  levy  and  collect  the  tax  directly  without  the  intervention 
of  the  local  legislatures. 

In  March,  1765,  the  Stamp  Act,  without  attracting  unusual 
attention,  and  without  exciting  serious  opposition,  passed  both 
Houses  of  Parliament  and  received  the  assent  of  the  king.  It  pro- 
vided that  bills,  bonds,  leases,  insurance  policies,  newspapers, 
broadsides  and  legal  documents  used  in  America  should  be  written 
on  stamped  paper,  and  that  the  proceeds  therefrom  should  be  ap- 
plied exclusively  to  the  protection  of  the  colonies.  The  act  was  to 
go  into  effect  on  the  first  of  November  following.  To  soften  the 
opposition,  the  distribution  of  the  stamps  was  to  be  left  to  the 
colonists,  and  their  agents  at  London  were  requested  to  recommend 
suitable  persons  for  appointment  as  stamp  distributors  —  a  request 
with  which  they  readily  complied.  An  objectionable  feature  of 
the  act  was  the  provision  that  offenses  arising  under  the  law  were 
not  to  be  tried  by  juries,  the  popular  belief  in  England  being  that 
no  jury  could  be  found  in  the  colonies  which  would  convict  a 
violator  of  such  an  unpopular  law.  This  feature,  however,  was 
of  little  consequence;  it  was  the  principle  of  the  act  to  which  the 
colonists  objected,  and  their  opposition  proved  to  be  out  of  all 
proportion  to  what  the  government  had  expected.-3     Indeed,  the 

22  "  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina,"  vol.  vi.  p.  1261. 
-3  Frothingham,  "  Rise  of  the  Republic,"  p.  177  et  seq. 


THE     RUPTURE  211 

1765 

calm  judgment  of  the  present  day  must  be  that  the  law  was  not 
necessarily  an  evil  or  tyrannical  measure.  It  had  years  before 
been  recommended  by  the  governors  of  several  colonies,  and  at  the 
time  little  objection  was  raised.24  To-day  the  government  of  the 
United  States  imposes  taxes  on  its  colonial  subjects  beyond  the  seas, 
although  they  are  not  only  unrepresented  in  Congress,  but  have  very 
few  rights  of  local  self-government,  and  whether  the  policy  be  right 
or  wrong  it  is  the  same  in  principle  as  that  to  which  our  forefathers 
objected  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution. 

When  the  news  of  the  enactment  of  the  law  reached  America 
a  wave  of  indignation  swept  over  the  colonies,  and  here  and  there 
impassioned  speakers  urged  the  people  to  resist  the  execution  of 
the  law.  The  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  aroused  by  the  fiery 
eloquence  of  Patrick  Henry,  who  asserted  in  the  course  of  a 
notable  speech  that  George  III.  might  suffer  the  fate  of  Caesar  and 
Charles  I.  if  he  did  not  "  profit  by  their  example,"  passed  a  series 
of  resolutions  declaring  that  the  people  of  the  colonies  were  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  of  natural  born  subjects  of  England;  that  the 
colonial  assemblies  had  the  exclusive  right  to  levy  taxes  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  America ;  and  that  every  attempt  of  Parliament  or 
of  any  other  authority  outside  the  colonies  to  exercise  such  power 
was  unconstitutional,  unjust  and  destructive  of  the  liberties  of  the 
colonists.25 

The  announcement  of  the  arrival  of  the  stamps  in  August  was 
at  once  followed  by  riots  and  disorders  in  various  parts  of  America. 
Stamp  distributers  were  hanged  in  effigy  and  forced  to  resign  their 
positions,  the  supply  of  stamps  was  seized  and  destroyed,  and  in 
some  cases  the  records  of  the  courts  were  burned.  In  Boston 
especially  were  the  disorders  serious.  The  house  of  Lieutenant 
Governor  Hutchinson,  the  finest  in  the  town,  was  sacked,  his 
large  library,  containing  rare  and  valuable  books,  burned,  and  his 
plate,  furniture  and  public  records  destroyed.  The  houses  of  other 
prominent  supporters  of  the  government  were  similarly  plundered, 
and  some  of  the  leading  sympathizers  with  the  government  were 
compelled  to  flee  from  the  colony. 

In  New  York  the  effigy  of  the  governor  was  paraded  with 
that  of  the  devil  around  the  town  and  publicly  burned.  Non- 
importation agreements  were  entered   into  by  the  citizens :   bells 

24  Howard,   "Preliminaries   of   the    Revolution,"   p.    ui. 

25  Tyler,    "  Patrick   Henry,"    p.   62. 


212  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1765-1766 

were  tolled  and  flags  placed  at  half-mast,  and  organizations  known 
as  "  Sons  of  Liberty  "  were  formed  everywhere.  Not  a  box  of 
stamps  could  be  found  in  the  colonies,  not  a  legal  document  was 
properly  stamped,  and  the  newspapers  appeared  with  a  death's- 
head  in  the  place  of  the  stamp  required.  It  was  found  absolutely 
impossible  to  enforce  the  law,  and  the  governors  were  compelled 
to  authorize  non-compliance  with  it.26 

Meantime,  at  the  instance  of  James  Otis,  the  Massachusetts 
General  Court  had  issued  a  call  for  a  general  congress  to  take 
into  consideration  the  state  of  affairs  caused  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment. In  response  to  this  call  delegates  from  nine  colonies, 
practically  all  whose  legislatures  were  in  sesson  during  the  summer, 
met  at  New  York  on  October  7,  and  drew  up  a  Declaration  of 
Rights  and  addressed  petitions  to  the  king  and  to  both  Houses  of 
Parliament.27  The  Declaration  of  Rights  asserted  that  while  the 
colonists  owed  allegiance  to  the  Crown  they  were  entitled  to  the 
same  liberties  as  natural  born  subjects,  that  for  geographical  rea- 
sons they  could  not  be  represented  in  the  British  Parliament,  and 
that  no  authority  beyond  their  local  legislatures  could  levy  taxes 
upon  them. 

It  was  now  clear  that  they  were  determined  to  resist  the 
execution  of  the  law,  and  the  proceedings  described  above  soon 
showed  that  they  were  quite  able  to  do  so  with  marked  success. 
English  merchants  were  suffering  from  the  loss  of  American  trade 
caused  by  the  non-importation  agreements.  Besides,  the  require- 
ment that  the  new  duties  should  be  paid  in  specie  and  the  cutting 
off  of  the  supply  from  the  West  Indies  by  the  strict  enforcement  of 
the  Acts  of  Trade  made  it  impossible  to  import  manufactured 
articles  from  England,  and  compelled  the  colonies  to  depend  upon 
home  industries.  Thus  American  trade  with  the  mother  country 
was  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Thousands  of  artisans  were  thrown 
out  of  employment,  and  petitions  from  all  over  the  United  King- 
dom poured  in  upon  Parliament  praying  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act.28  At  this  juncture  the  unpopular  Grenville  ministry 
fell,  and  was  succeeded  by  a  new  one  formed  by  the  Marquis  of 
Rockingham. 

20  Lccky,  '"  The   American   Revolution,"  p.   84. 

"7  Frothingham,  "Rise  of  the  Republic,"  p.  188;  Fiske,  "The  American 
Revolution,"  vol.   i.  pp.   22-23. 

-8  Helen  Hodges,  "  Repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,"  in  The  Political  Science 
Quarterly.   June,    K7O4. 


THE     RUPTURE  213 

1766 

Under  the  leadership  of  the  new  ministry  Parliament,  in 
January,  1766,  took  up  the  question  of  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp 
Act,  and  in  order  to  ascertain  as  nearly  as  possible  the  sentiments 
of  the  colonists,  Benjamin  Franklin,  then  residing  at  London  as 
colonial  agent,  was  summoned  before  the  bar  of  the  House  of 
Commons  and  interrogated  on  the  situation  in  America.  He  told 
the  Commons  that  the  people  of  America  felt  a  genuine  pride  in 
being  a  part  of  the  great  British  Empire,  and  that  they  had  a  real 
attachment  for  those  of  the  old  world  with  whom  they  were  so 
closely  connected  by  ties  of  blood  and  interest,  but  that  they  denied 
the  right  of  the  imperial  government  to  tax  them  without  their  con- 
sent, since  the  colonies  were  unrepresented  in  Parliament,  and  since 
they  were  not  a  part  of  the  realm  —  not  a  part  of  the  dominions  of 
England,  but  of  the  king's  dominions.  They  were,  he  insisted, 
subordinate  only  to  the  king,  both  in  matters  of  legislation  and 
taxation;  that  he  alone  was  the  bond  of  union  between  them  and 
England.  In  the  course  of  his  examination  Franklin  dispelled 
many  popular  illusions  concerning  the  colonies,  and  produced  con- 
vincing proof  of  their  determination  to  resist  to  the  bitter  end  the 
attempt  of  Parliament  to  tax  them. 

Next  to  Franklin's  examination  the  principal  features  of  the 
session  were  the  great  speeches  of  Burke  and  Pitt  in  behalf  of  the 
rights  of  the  colonists  and  the  profound  constitutional  discussions 
of  Lords  Mansfield  and  Camden.  Pitt  was  the  foremost  champion 
of  the  rights  of  the  colonists.  Rising  from  a  bed  of  sickness,  he 
dragged  himself  into  the  House  of  Commons  and  entered  an  elo- 
quent protest  against  what  he  regarded  as  the  wicked  and  short- 
sighted policy  of  the  Government.  "  The  kingdom,"  he  declared, 
"  has  no  right  to  lay  a  tax  on  the  colonies  because  they  are  unrepre- 
sented in  Parliament.  The  Commons  of  America,  represented  in 
their  assemblies,  have  ever  been  in  possession  of  this  their  constitu- 
tional right  of  giving  and  granting  money.  They  would  have  been 
slaves  without  it.  I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted.  Three  mil- 
lions of  people  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to 
submit  to  be  slaves  would  have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of 
the  rest."  The  profits  of  Great  Britain  from  the  colonies,  he  said, 
were  not  less  than  2.000,000  pounds  a  year,  and  this  was  price 
enough  for  them  to  pay  for  their  protection.29 

29  See  Pitt's  speech  in  Hart,  "  American  History  Told  by  Contemporaries," 
vol.  ii.  no.  142. 


214.  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1766 

Lord  Camden,  in  the  House  of  Lords,  spoke  in  a  similar  strain. 
"  Taxation  and  representation,"  he  declared,  "  are  inseparable." 
Both  Pitt  and  Camden,  however,  admitted  the  right  of  Parliament 
to  regulate  colonial  trade,  and  insisted  that  there  was  "  a  plain 
distinction  between  taxes  levied  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue 
and  duties  imposed  for  the  regulation  of  trade,"  although  the  latter 
might  incidentally  yield  revenue.  Conway,  Burke,  Rockingham 
and  others  argued  in  favor  of  repeal  on  the  ground  of  expediency 
without  reference  to  the  legal  right  of  Parliament  to  tax  the  colo- 
nies. 

Lord  Mansfield,  on  the  other  hand,  speaking  for  the  opposition, 
upheld  the  right  of  Parliament  to  impose  the  tax,  pronounced  the  dis- 
tinction between  external  and  internal  taxes  fallacious,  and  declared 
that  the  colonies  were  as  much  represented  in  Parliament  as  were 
the  non-voters  of  England.  "  The  notion,"  he  said,  "  that  every 
subject  must  be  represented  by  deputy,  if  he  does  not  vote  in 
Parliament  himself,  is  merely  ideal,"  and  asserted  that  the  imperial 
legislature  had  "  authority  to  bind  every  part  of  and  every  sub- 
ject without  the  least  distinction,  whether  such  subjects  have  a 
right  to  vote  or  not,  or  whether  the  law  binds  places  within  the 
realm  or  without."  The  outcome  of  all  this  remarkable  debate  was 
the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  but  to  lighten  the  fall  of  the  ministry 
as  much  as  possible,  the  repealing  act  was  accompanied  by  a  "  Declar- 
atory Act  "  affirming  the  right  of  Parliament  to  legislate  for  the 
colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  and  the  subordination  of  the  Ameri- 
cans to  the  Crown  and  Parliament  of  Great  Britain.30 

Benjamin  Franklin  doubtless  expressed  the  general  opinion  of 
the  colonists  when  he  stated  that  the  "  Declaratory  Act  "  would 
cause  little  concern  if  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  put  it  into 
effect.31  The  announcement  of  the  repeal  was  followed  by  general 
rejoicing  in  America.  The  colonial  assemblies  voted  thanks  to  the 
king,  Pitt,  Camden  and  others;  the  Quakers  of  Pennsylvania 
showed  their  loyalty  on  the  king's  birthday  by  donning  suits  of 
English  cloth,  giving  their  homespun  garments  to  the  poor,  and 
in  many  towns  statues  were  erected  in  honor  of  the  king  and  the 
Great  Commoner.  Speaking  a  few  years  later  of  these  evidences 
of  loyalty  Pitt  declared  that  "  the  Americans  had  almost  forgot 
in  the  excess  of  their  gratitude  for  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  any 

30  Winsor,    "  Narrative    and    Critical    History,"    vol.    vi.    p.    32. 

31  "  Parliamentary   History,"   vol.    xvi.   p.    145. 


THE     RUPTURE  215 

1766-1767 

interest  except  for  the  mother  country ;  that  there  seemed  an  emula- 
tion among  the  different  provinces  as  to  who  should  be  the  most 
dutiful  and  forward  in  their  expressions  of  loyalty." 

The  Rockingham  ministry  fell  shortly  after  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  and  Pitt,  who  had  just  recently  been  made  a  peer  with 
the  title  of  Earl  of  Chatham,  became  the  head  of  a  coalition 
ministry  consisting  of  various  elements,  including  even  Tories.32 
On  account  of  ill  health,  however,  he  was  compelled  to  relinquish 
the  active  management  of  the  government  to  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  Charles  Townshend,  an  able  and  brilliant  statesman, 
but  sadly  lacking  in  Pitt's  foresight  and  conciliatory  disposition. 
Townshend  assumed  the  reins  of  government  with  the  full  deter- 
mination of  enforcing  the  Declaratory  Act,  and  of  showing  the 
colonists  that  England  was  still  their  master.  Accordingly,  he 
passed  (1767)  a  series  of  bills  commonly  known  as  the  Townshend 
Acts.  One  of  these,  evidently  drawn  with  due  deference  to  the 
colonial  distinction  between  "  external  "  and  "  internal  "  taxes,  pro- 
vided for  the  levying  of  a  customs  tax  on  tea,  wine,  oil,  glass,  paper, 
lead  and  painters'  colors  imported  into  the  colonies;  another  pro- 
vided that  the  salaries  of  the  colonial  judges  and  governors  should 
be  paid  out  of  the  royal  treasury  instead  of  out  of  the  colonial 
treasuries,  as  a  means  of  rendering  these  officials  independent  of 
the  local  assemblies;  and  another  act  legalized  writs  of  assistance 
and  gave  the  admiralty  courts  jurisdiction  of  offenses  against  the 
revenue  laws  without  the  benefit  of  a  jury.  To  provide  for  the 
more  efficient  administration  of  the  revenue  laws  a  board  of  cus- 
toms commissioners,  with  large  powers  of  supervision,  was  created. 
Finally,  because  the  legislature  of  New  York  had  refused  to  pro- 
vide quarters  and  supplies  for  the  British  troops  stationed  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  as  required  by  a  previous  act,  Parliament  sus- 
pended its  functions.33  These  several  acts  constituted  severe  in- 
fringements upon  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  the  right  of  local  self- 
government,  and  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  of  the  colonies, 
aroused  them  to  a  high  pitch  of  indignation  and  drove  them  still 
further  to  resist  the  measures  of  the  home  government.  Every- 
where non-importation  agreements  were  proposed  for  the  purpose 
of  boycotting  English  products,  while  men  like  Samuel  Adams  in 

32  Fiske,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  vol.  i.  p.  28. 

33  Fiske,  "  American  Revolution,"  vol.  i.  p.  30 ;  Frothingham,  "  Rise  of  the 
Republic,"  p.  205 ;  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  35. 


216  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1767-1770 

Massachusetts,  John  Dickinson  in  Pennsylvania,  and  Patrick  Henry 
in  Virginia  stirred  the  masses  to  the  verge  of  rebellion  by  their 
impassioned  eloquence. 

In  the  year  following  the  enactment  of  these  laws,  Townshend 
was  succeeded  as  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  by  Lord  North,  but 
no  change  of  policy  toward  the  colonists  was  made.  In  February, 
1768,  the  Massachusetts  legislature  passed  certain  resolutions  set- 
ting forth  the  rights  of  the  colonists,  and  sent  a  circular  letter  to 
the  assemblies  of  the  other  colonies  inviting  them  to  take  similar 
action.  The  British  authorities  took  great  offense  at  these  pro- 
ceedings, and  instructed  the  governor  to  demand  the  recall  of  the 
circular.  This  the  assembly  refused  to  do,  whereupon  the  governor 
dissolved  it,  and  at  the  same  time  the  other  assemblies  were  warned 
not  to  follow  the  example  of  Massachusetts.  Some  of  them  did 
not  heed  the  royal  admonition,  however,  and  were  promptly  pun- 
ished by  dissolution. 

The  Virginia  Assembly  in  particular  showed  unusual  boldness 
and  determination.  In  May,  1769,  it  passed  a  series  of  resolutions 
emphatically  denying  the  right  of  England  to  tax  the  colonies, 
affirming  their  right  to  act  in  concert  to  secure  a  redress  of  griev- 
ances, and  denouncing  in  strong  language  the  Parliamentary  sug- 
gestion that  the  king  should  transport  to  England  for  trial  all 
persons  in  America  charged  with  treason.34  Being  dissolved  by 
the  governor,  the  legislature  repaired  to  a  near-by  tavern,  where 
the  members  entered  into  a  solemn  agreement  not  to  use  any  goods 
imported  from  England  which  were  taxed  under  the  Townshend 
law.  Similar  agreements  were  entered  into  in  the  other  colonies, 
and  by  this  means  English  merchants  were  soon  forced  by  loss  of 
trade  to  exert  all  the  pressure  they  could  command  to  secure  the 
repeal  of  the  Townshend  duties. 

The  importation  of  the  taxed  commodities  became  so  incon- 
siderable and  the  expense  of  collection  so  great  on  account  of  the 
elaborate  administrative  machinery  necessary  to  prevent  smuggling, 
that  the  revenue  obtained  was  scarcely  worth  the  trouble;  indeed, 
it  is  stated  that  the  total  net  amount  derived  from  the  Townshend 
law  was  but  295  pounds  above  the  cost  of  collection,  while  the 
increased  expenditures  made  necessary  by  the  local  opposition  ex- 
ceeded 170,000  pounds.  As  a  revenue  producer,  therefore,  the 
Townshend  law  was  a  failure,  and  was  repealed  in  April,  1770,  ex- 
34  Frothingham,  "  Rise   of  the  Republic,"  p.   234. 


THE    BOSTON    MASSACRE 
Drawing    by    F.    T.    Merrill 


THE     RUPTURE  217 

1770-1771 

cept  that  the  duty  on  tea,  glass  and  painters'  colors  was  retained 
more  to  serve  as  a  precedent  in  case  of  future  taxation  than  any- 
thing else.  The  partial  repeal  of  the  act,  however,  did  not  allay 
the  opposition,  because  the  principle  involved  had  not  been  aban- 
doned by  the  British  Government.  The  attempt  to  enforce  the  un- 
popular law  had  been  attended  by  riots  and  disorders,  and  at  times 
Boston,  in  particular,  was  well-nigh  at  the  mercy  of  mob  rule. 
Informers  were  tarred  and  feathered  and  led  through  the  streets, 
and  English  goods  belonging  to  merchants  were  destroyed. 

In  March,  1770,  occurred  one  of  these  conflicts,  which  has 
come  down  to  us  as  the  "  Boston  Massacre."  To  preserve  order 
and  aid  the  revenue  officials  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  several 
regiments  of  troops  had  recently  been  sent  to  Boston,  and  their  pres- 
ence in  the  town  had  from  the  first  served  to  excite  popular  indigna- 
tion. On  March  5  a  party  of  soldiers,  provoked  by  the  action  of 
a  crowd  of  men  and  boys  who  taunted  them  with  such  epithets  as 
"  lobsters  "  and  "  bloody  backs,"  and  dared  them  to  shoot,  fired 
into  the  crowd  and  killed  several  of  their  number.  Immediately 
the  town  was  in  an  uproar.  The  cry  was  raised  that  the  "  bloody 
and  brutal  myrmidons  of  England  had  shot  down  the  inoffensive 
citizens  of  Boston."  The  church  bells  were  rung,  drums  called  the 
people  to  arms,  and  an  immense  meeting  of  the  citizens  resolved 
that  the  soldiers  must  go. 

Lieutenant  Governor  Hutchinson  was  waited  on  by  a  com- 
mittee and  informed  of  the  action  of  the  meeting.  He  hesitated, 
and  endeavored  to  make  excuses,  but  the  meeting  remained  in 
session  and  demanded  a  positive  answer  before  nightfall.  Under 
these  circumstances  Hutchinson  yielded,  and  removed  the  troops  to 
Fort  William,  in  the  harbor,  three  miles  from  the  city.35  The  sol- 
diers accused  of  the  murder  of  the  citizens  were  placed  on  trial  and 
were  defended  by  two  of  the  leading  patriots  of  the  colony,  John 
Adams  and  Josiah  Quincy.  They  were  all  acquitted  by  a  local  jury 
except  two,  who  were  convicted  of  manslaughter  and  given  slight 
punishments. 

Already  in  the  year  1771  the  battle  of  Alamance,  sometimes 
called  the  first  of  the  Revolution,  had  occurred  in  North  Carolina 
between  the  troops  of  the  royalist  Governor  Tryon  and  a  band  of 
"  regulators,"  who,  being  goaded  by  extortion  and  unlawful  im- 

35  Lecky,    "  American    Revolution,"    pp.    128-129. 


218  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1771-1772 

prisonment,  had  risen  in  rebellion  36  against  the  royal  authorities. 
In  the  course  of  a  severe  fight  they  were  defeated,  two  hundred  of 
their  number  being  killed  while  several  were  captured  and  hanged 
for  treason.  An  incident  in  1772  which  attracted  wide  attention, 
and  which  had  important  consequences,  was  the  Gaspcc  affair. 
The  Gaspcc  was  an  armed  British  schooner  which  was  engaged 
in  patrolling  the  coasts  of  Narragansett  Bay  to  prevent  violation  of 
the  revenue  laws.  The  conduct  of  the  commander  in  trying  to  per- 
form his  duty  greatly  offended  the  inhabitants  living  along  the  coast, 
and  they  made  complaints,  without  result.  Finally,  one  day  in 
June,  while  chasing  an  American  vessel,  the  Gaspcc  ran  aground, 
and  on  the  following  evening  she  was  boarded  by  a  party  of  re- 
spectable citizens,  who  burned  the  vessel  to  the  water's  edge.  The 
British  authorities  were  furious  at  this  outrage  and  ordered  the 
arrest  of  the  offenders  and  their  delivery  up  for  transportation  to 
England  for  treason,  but  no  evidence  could  be  obtained  against 
them,  although  probably  every  person  in  the  community  knew  who 
the  guilty  parties  were. 

Moreover,  the  chief  justice,  Stephen  Hopkins,  afterwards  one 
of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  openly  declared 
that  he  would  not  take  cognizance  of  any  case  arising  out  of  the 
affair,  and  that  no  one  of  the  accused  should  be  removed  from  the 
colony  for  trial  in  England  or  elsewhere.  Arising  from  the  event 
was  the  appointment  by  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses  of  a 
"  committee  of  correspondence  "  to  ascertain  the  facts  concerning 
the  burning  of  the  Gaspcc  and  "  to  maintain  a  correspondence  with 
our  sister  colonies."  37  Half  a  dozen  other  colonies  soon  followed 
the  example  of  Virginia,  and  thus  was  created  a  system  of  revolu- 
tionary machinery  that  in  time  was  adopted  generally  in  America 
and  proved  of  inestimable  value  in  bringing  about  concert  of  action 
among  the  colonies.38 

All  these  evidences  of  a  mistaken  policy  had  no  effect  on 
George  III.,  who  was  not  only  dull,  but  vindictive.  He  was  re- 
solved to  try  the  issue  with  the  Americans  regardless  of  conse- 
quences. To  force  them  to  pay  the  duty  on  tea  he  hit  upon  an 
ingenious  scheme.  At  this  time  the  financial  affairs  of  the  English 
East  India  Company  were  in  a  bad  way,  mainly  because  Americans 

30  Fiske,  "  American  Revolution,"  vol.  i.  p.  75. 

37  Channing,    "  History   of   the    United    States,"    p.    181. 

38  Frothingham,  "Rise  of  the  Republic,"  pp.  280-283. 


THE     RUPTURE  219 

1772-1773 

were  no  longer  buying  tea  from  England,  but  were  smuggling  it 
from  Holland.  Being  anxious  to  help  the  English  East  India 
Company  out  of  its  straits,  and  at  the  same  time  induce  the  Ameri- 
cans to  buy  English  tea,  it  was  decided  to  make  the  English  article 
cheaper  than  the  Dutch  tea,  which  had  to  be  smuggled.  Accord- 
ingly, the  English  East  India  Company  was  allowed  a  drawback  on 
the  tea  which  it  imported  into  England  from  the  Orient  and  re- 
exported to  America.  The  remission  of  the  customary  duty  enabled 
the  English  company  to  undersell  the  Dutch  East  India  Company, 
and  of  course  it  was  believed  that  the  Americans  would  buy 
the  cheaper  article  (it  was  only  threepence  per  pound),  and  thus 
admit  the  principle  involved  in  the  duty  collected  in  America.39 
But  this  assumption  proved  wholly  unwarranted.  The  scheme  thus 
ingeniously  devised  to  inveigle  them  into  paying  the  duty  was  too 
thinly  veiled  to  cover  its  real  purpose,  and  they  determined  not  to 
be  ensnared  by  it. 

In  the  autumn  of  1773  several  cargoes  of  tea  were  sent  to 
America  consigned  to  agents  at  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia 
and  Charleston.  In  several  of  these  cities  indignation  meetings  were 
held  and  the  consignees  forced  to  resign  their  commissions.  In 
Charleston  the  tea  was  offered  for  sale  by  the  customs  officials  to 
pay  the  duty,  but  nobody  would  buy,  and  it  was  stored  in  damp 
cellars,  only  to  rot.  In  Philadelphia  a  town  meeting  was  held  and 
a  resolution  passed  requesting  the  captain  of  a  tea  ship,  recently 
arrived,  to  take  his  cargo  out  of  the  harbor,  and  he  promptly 
obeyed,  returning  with  his  ship  to  England.  The  tea  was  similarly 
disposed  of  in  New  York.  In  Boston  no  amount  of  pressure  could 
force  the  consignees  to  resign ;  town  meetings  were  held  to  consider 
what  action  should  be  taken  upon  the  arrival  of  the  tea,  and  the 
committees  of  correspondence  throughout  the  colony  took  up  the 
question  and  discussed  it  as  though  the  fate  of  the  nation  was  at 
stake. 

On  Sunday,  November  28,  one  of  the  expected  tea  ships 
arrived  in  the  harbor.  An  immense  town  meeting  was  held 
at  the  Old  South  Meeting  House,  and  it  was  unanimously  voted 
that  the  tea  should  not  be  allowed  to  land.  Other  meetings  fol- 
lowed in  the  course  of  the  week,  and  the  excitement  of  the  populace 
reached  a  high  pitch.  Finally,  on  the  night  of  December  16,  a  mob 
of  fifty  persons,  disguised  as  Indians  and  armed  with  hatchets, 

39  Hutchinson,   "  History   of   Massachusetts,"   vol.   iii.    pp.    331-332. 


220  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1773-1774 

proceeded  to  the  wharf  and  threw  the  cargoes  of  three  ships  — 
three  hundred  and  forty  chests  in  all  —  into  the  sea.40  The  excited 
crowd  looked  on  with  approval  for  three  hours,  and  not  a  man  was 
arrested  for  the  deed.  As  to  the  moral  aspect  of  this  conduct  his- 
torians have  differed,  and  will  probably  continue  to  differ,  according 
as  their  sympathies  are  with  the  Americans  or  British.  The  emi- 
nently candid  and  fair  English  historian,  Lecky,  describes  it  as 
nothing  more  than  an  "  outrage,"  41  while  John  Fiske  speaks  of  it 
as  a  "  heroic  act,"  full  of  grandeur  and  deserving  of  greater  praise 
than  it  has  received  from  the  hands  of  historians.42  Be  this  as 
it  may,  the  news  of  the  affair  caused  intense  indignation  among  the 
government  authorities  in  England,  and  led  them  to  resolve  upon 
stringent  measures  for  the  punishment  of  the  turbulent  and  rebel- 
lious inhabitants  of  Boston  in  particular,  and  of  Massachusetts  in 
general. 

"  If  we  take  a  determined  stand  now,"  said  the  great  jurist, 
Lord  Mansfield,  "  Boston  will  submit  and  all  will  end  in  victory 
without  carnage."  To  the  same  effect  was  the  boast  of  General 
Gage  that  "  they  will  be  lions  while  we  are  lambs ;  but  if  we  take  the 
resolute  part  they  will  prove  very  meek,  I  promise  you."  With  the 
object,  therefore,  of  bringing  the  colonists  to  submission,  Parlia- 
ment passed  five  laws,  which,  from  their  stringent  and  repressive 
character,  were  popularly  known  as  the  five  "  intolerable  "  acts. 
The  first  of  these  was  the  so-called  Boston  Port  Bill,  which  closed 
the  port  of  Boston  to  commerce  until  the  city  should  indemnify 
the  owners  of  the  £15.000  worth  of  tea  thrown  overboard  and 
the  customs  officials  for  the  damage  done  by  mobs  in  1773  and  1774. 
The  act,  furthermore,  made  Marblehead  the  port  of  entry  and 
Salem  the  seat  of  government  in  the  place  of  Boston. 

The  second  measure,  known  as  the  Regulating  Act,  annulled 
the  liberal  charter  of  Massachusetts  and  virtually  took  away  the 
large  measure  of  self-government  which  the  colony  had  always  en- 
joyed. It  provided  that  the  executive  council  should  be  appointed 
by  the  Crown  instead  of  by  the  Assembly,  empowered  the  governor 
to  appoint  and  remove  at  pleasure  all  judges  and  administrative 
officers,  made  the  judges'  salaries  a  charge  upon  the  Crown  instead 
of  upon  the  legislature,  prohibited  town  meetings  except  with  the 

40Hosmer,    "Life   of   Samuel    Adams,"   p.    242. 

41  Lecky,   "  American   Revolution,'-  p.   153. 

42  Fiske,    ''American    Revolution,"    vol.    i.    pp.    90-91. 


THE     RUPTURE  221 

1774 

approval  of  the  governor,  and  vested  the  selection  of  juries  in  the 
hands  of  sheriffs  instead  of  in  the  people.  The  third  measure, 
often  called  the  Transportation  Act,  provided  for  the  removal  to 
England  for  trial  of  any  royal  official,  including  soldiers  who  might 
be  accused  of  murder  in  suppressing  riots,  the  purpose  being,  of 
course,  to  secure  a  fair  trial  of  such  persons  as  the  soldiers 
who  were  responsible  for  the  "  Boston  Massacre,"  but  the  result 
of  which,  the  Americans  insisted,  was  to  encourage  the  British 
soldiery  to  shoot  inoffensive  citizens. 

The  fourth  law,  known  as  the  Quartering  Act,  made  it  obliga- 
tory upon  Massachusetts  towns  to  furnish  quarters  to  British  troops, 
while  the  fifth,  passed  about  the  same  time,  and  usually  known  as 
the  Quebec  Act,  extended  the  boundaries  of  Canada  to  the  Ohio 
River,  in  spite  of  the  territorial  claims  of  the  Eastern  colonies. 
Furthermore,  the  act  involved  the  introduction  of  the  Catholic 
religion  into  the  Northwest,  and  a  centralized  system  of  administra- 
tion, the  effect  of  which  the  English  colonists  claimed  would  be 
to  shut  them  out  from  immigration  to  this  region.  The  purpose  of 
the  act  was  probably  misunderstood  by  the  colonists,  for  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  it  was  passed  out  of  hostility  to  them,43  but 
in  the  then  excited  state  of  mind  they  interpreted  it  as  one  of  the 
additional  blows  by  which  the  British  Government  was  riveting  the 
chains  of  slavery  upon  them.44  General  Gage  was  now  sent  over 
with  several  regiments  to  close  the  port  of  Boston,  and,  if  possible, 
starve  or  awe  the  turbulent  inhabitants  into  submission.  He  was 
given  a  sort  of  carte  blanche  in  dealing  with  those  who  resisted  the 
execution  of  the  law,  and  was  ordered  to  arrest  and  send  to  England 
for  trial  on  the  charge  of  treason  the  leading  "  agitators  "  who, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  king,  were  chiefly  responsible  for  the  recent 
disorders.  It  soon  became  evident,  however,  that  all  the  colonies 
would  make  common  cause  with  Massachusetts,  and  that  the  at- 
tempt of  the  king  to  punish  one  of  them  would  be  resisted  by  all. 

When  the  news  of  the  Boston  Port  Bill  reached  Massachusetts 
a  town  meeting  was  called  and  a  circular  was  prepared  and  sent 
to  the  other  colonies,  asking  their  aid  and  sympathy.  The  re- 
sponses were  prompt  and  generous.     When  the  first  of  June  had 

43  Coffin,  "  The  Quebec  Act "  in  the  "  Annual  Report  of  the  American  His- 
torical Association"  for  1894;  also,  Hinsdale,  "The  Old  Northwest,"  p.   141. 

44  Fiske,    "  American    Revolution,"   pp.    93-97 ;    Channing,    "  History   of   the 
United  States,"  p.  184. 


222  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1774 

arrived,  the  day  on  which  the  Port  Bill  was  to  go  into  effect,  droves 
of  cattle,  loads  of  grain,  vegetables,  fruit,  fish,  etc.,  were  pouring 
into  Boston  from  the  neighboring  colonies,  even  from  communities 
as  far  away  as  South  Carolina.  Everywhere  the  first  of  June  was 
observed  as  a  fast  day;  bells  were  tolled  and  flags  on  the  ships  in 
the  harbors  placed  at  half-mast.45  The  town  refused  to  indemnify 
the  tea  merchants  or  the  customs  officials,  in  fact  claimed  that  it 
had  no  legal  right  to  do  so,  and  neglected  to  punish  any  of  the 
offenders,  although  their  identity  was  known  to  everyone.  There 
could  be  no  doubt  of  the  state  of  public  opinion  in  America,  and 
had  George  III.  possessed  the  average  amount  of  common  sense  he 
would  have  readily  seen  how  untenable  his  position  was. 


II 

THE  FIRST  CONTINENTAL  CONGRESS 

Matters  had  now  reached  a  point  where  the  cause  of  the  colo- 
nists required  a  more  efficient  agency  for  securing  concert  of  action 
and  unity  of  purpose  than  that  afforded  by  the  inter-colonial  com- 
mittees of  correspondence.  The  New  York  Sons  of  Liberty  had 
earlier  in  the  year  1774  proposed  a  Continental  Congress  as  contra- 
distinguished from  the  provincial  or  State  congresses,  which  should 
contain  representatives  from  all  the  colonies,  and  which  should  take 
into  consideration  the  present  state  of  affairs  and  adopt  measures 
for  the  future  conduct  of  the  people.  The  legislature  of  Virginia, 
after  the  dissolution  referred  to  above,  assembled  unofficially  at  the 
Raleigh  tavern,  approved  the  suggestion  and  invited  Massachusetts 
to  fix  the  date  and  place  of  meeting.  The  legislature  of  the  latter 
colony,  assembled  at  Salem,  acted  promptly  and  favorably  on  the 
Virginia  invitation.  The  leading  patriot  in  Massachusetts  at  the 
time,  or,  as  the  English  preferred  to  say,  the  leading  "  agitator," 
was  Samuel  Adams,  and  it  was  through  his  shrewd  and  bold  action 
that  the  legislature  outwitted  the  governor  and  adopted  resolutions 
appointing  delegates  and  fixing  Philadelphia  as  the  place,  and 
September  1  as  the  time,  of  the  proposed  meeting.40 

Knowing  full  well  that  the  governor  would  dissolve  the  legis- 

45  Fiske,    "  American    Revolution,"    vol.    i.    p.    103. 

48  For   an   unfavorable   opinion  of   Adams,   see   Lecky,   "  American    Revolu- 
tion," p.  121. 


THE     RUPTURE  223 

1774 

lature  should  it  attempt  to  consider  such  a  proposition,  Adams 
coolly  locked  the  door  of  the  assembly  hall  and  kept  the  members  in 
their  seats,  Tories  and  all,  and  denied  admission  to  the  governor's 
secretary,  when  presently  he  arrived  with  a  writ  dissolving  the 
Assembly.  Thus  undisturbed,  the  House  quietly  passed  its  meas- 
ures and  adjourned.  The  invitation  to  take  part  in  the  proposed 
Congress  was  generally  accepted,  and  all  the  colonies  except  Georgia 
chose  delegates,  some  of  them  in  an  irregular  way,  before  the  end 
of  the  summer. 

The  Congress  met  at  Carpenters'  Hall,  Philadelphia,  September 
5,  1774.  Forty- four  members  were  present,  and  the  number  was 
subsequently  increased  to  fifty-two.  Some  of  the  prominent  dele- 
gates in  attendance  were  Peyton  Randolph  of  Virginia,  who  was 
chosen  president ;  Samuel  and  John  Adams  of  Massachusetts ;  Roger 
Sherman  and  Silas  Deane  of  Connecticut;  John  Jay  of  New  York; 
Stephen  Hopkins  of  Rhode  Island;  George  Washington,  Patrick 
Henry,  Benjamin  Harrison,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and  Edmund 
Pendleton  of  Virginia;  John  Dickinson  and  Joseph  Galloway,  the 
latter  a  famous  loyalist,  of  Pennsylvania;  McKean,  Rodney  and 
Read  of  Delaware ;  the  two  Rutledges,  John  and  Edward,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  others  of  less  prominence  in  the  future  history  of  our 
country.  It  was  the  ablest,  as  it  was  the  first,  general  assembly  of 
the  English  colonists  of  America.47  It  was,  of  course,  not  a  legis- 
lative body,  but  a  revolutionary  assembly,  and  did  not,  therefore, 
attempt  to  do  much  more  than  adopt  recommendations  for  the 
guidance  of  the  colonists  in  the  approaching  conflict  with  the  mother 
country.  After  a  month  of  deliberation  marked  by  an  exhibition 
of  remarkable  moderation  and  conservatism,  the  Congress  put  forth 
a  declaration  of  the  rights  of  the  colonists,  including  their  griev- 
ances; adopted  addresses  to  the  king,  the  people  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  inhabitants  of  Canada;  and  entered  into  an  association  of 
non-intercourse  with  Great  Britain.  Some  idea  of  the  spirit  which 
permeated  these  addresses  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  ex- 
tract from  the  address  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain : 

"  We  believe  there  is  yet  much  virtue  in  the  English  nation. 
To  that  justice  we  now  appeal.     You  have  been  told  that  we  are 

47  Of  this  Congress,  William  Pitt,  lately  become  Earl  of  Chatham,  said : 
"  For  myself  I  must  declare  and  avow  that  in  all  my  reading  and  observation, 
for  solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity  and  wisdom  of  conclusion,  no  nation 
or  body  of  men  can  stand  in  preference  to  the  Congress  of  Philadelphia." 


224  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1774 

seditious,  impatient  of  government  and  desirous  of  independency. 
Be  assured  that  these  are  not  facts,  but  calumnies.  Permit  us  to  be 
as  free  as  yourself,  and  we  shall  ever  esteem  a  union  with  you  to 
be  our  greatest  glory  and  our  greatest  happiness;  we  shall  ever  be 
ready  to  contribute  all  in  our  power  to  the  welfare  of  the  Empire; 
we  shall  consider  your  enemies  as  our  enemies  and  your  interests 
as  our  interests.  But  if  you  are  determined  that  your  ministers 
shall  wantonly  sport  with  the  rights  of  mankind  —  if  neither  the 
voice  of  justice,  the  dictates  of  law,  the  principles  of  the  Constitu- 
tion nor  the  suggestions  of  humanity  can  restrain  your  hands  from 
shedding  human  blood  in  such  an  impious  cause,  we  must  tell  you 
that  we  will  never  submit  to  be  hewers  of  wood  or  drawers  of 
water  for  any  ministry  or  nation  in  the  world."  48 

The  non-intercourse  resolution  pledged  the  colonists  not  to  im- 
port after  December  I  following  any  goods,  wares  or  merchandise 
from  Great  Britain,  or  any  tea,  molasses  or  coffee  from  the  British 
colonies,  and  after  September  10,  1775,  if  the  obnoxious  acts  of 
Parliament  were  not  repealed,  they  would  export  no  merchandise 
or  produce  to  Great  Britain.  The  delegates  further  pledged  them- 
selves to  do  all  in  their  power  to  make  the  colonies  economically 
independent  of  the  mother  country.  They  agreed  to  improve  the 
breed  of  their  sheep ;  not  to  eat  or  export  any  mutton ;  to  encourage 
economy,  frugality,  and  industry;  to  promote  agriculture,  arts,  and 
manufactures,  especially  that  of  wool ;  to  discountenance  every  spe- 
cies of  extravagance  and  dissipation,  particularly  horse-racing  and 
all  kinds  of  gaming,  cock-fighting,  shows,  plays,  and  other  diver- 
sions and  entertainments;  and  that  upon  the  death  of  any  friend  or 
relative  they  would  wear  the  plainest  of  mourning  dress  and  dis- 
continue the  practice  of  giving  gloves  and  scarfs  at  funerals.  It 
was  further  agreed  than  any  person  who  should  take  advantage  of 
the  scarcity  caused  thereby  to  raise  prices  should  be  boycotted  by 
the  people,  that  a  vigilance  committee  should  be  appointed  in  every 
community  to  "  observe  the  conduct  of  persons  touching  the  agree- 
ment," and  that  all  persons  so  violating  it  should  be  "  published  in 
the  Gazette  and  universally  contemned  as  the  enemies  of  American 
liberty."  Finally  the  Congress  adjourned  in  October,  after  adopt- 
ing a  resolution  providing  for  the  assembling  of  a  new  Congress  in 

48  Journal  First  Continental  Congress.  For  the  legal  status  of  the  Con- 
gress, see  Friedenwald  in  the  "  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical 
Association"    for    1894. 


THERUPTURE  225 

1774-1775 

May,  1775,  if  in  the  meantime  the  grievances  of  the  colonists  were 
not  redressed. 

Ill 

LEXINGTON   AND   CONCORD 

The  day  on  which  the  Congress  assembled  at  Philadelphia 
General  Gage  set  to  work  fortifying  Boston  Neck  for  the 
purpose  of  defending  the  only  approach  to  the  city.  On  Sep- 
tember 17  a  meeting  representing  all  the  towns  of  Suffolk  County 
was  called,  and  it  adopted  a  series  of  "  resolves  "  arraigning  the 
British  Government  for  its  acts,  expressed  astonishment  at  the  mili- 
tary activities  of  General  Gage,  and  appointed  Dr.  Joseph  Warren 
to  wait  on  the  governor  and  inform  him  that  "  the  country  are 
alarmed  at  the  fortifications  beginning  on  Boston  Neck."  The  con- 
vention also  adopted  an  address  to  the  governor,  assuring  him  that 
the  people  of  America,  "  by  divine  assistance,"  were  resolved  never 
to  submit  to  the  late  acts  of  Parliament.  The  Suffolk  resolves 
were  laid  before  the  Continental  Congress  and  its  advice  requested. 
The  Congress  promptly  indorsed  the  resolutions,  pledged  the  aid  of 
the  other  colonies  in  case  armed  resistance  became  necessary,  and 
recommended  to  their  brethren  in  Massachusetts  "a  perseverance 
in  the  firm  and  temperate  conduct  "  as  expressed  in  their  resolu- 
tions. 

Thereupon  the  people  of  Massachusetts  proceeded  to  organize 
a  provisional  government  of  their  own  with  the  intention  of  re- 
pudiating the  sovereignty  of  Great  Britain.  The  legislature,  which 
had  been  dissolved  by  the  governor,  assembled  at  Salem  upon  its 
own  authority  and  organized  itself  into  a  Provincial  Congress  under 
the  presidency  of  John  Hancock,  a  wealthy  merchant  of  Boston,  a 
graduate  of  Harvard,  and  one  of  the  three  leading  patriots  of  the 
colony.  The  Congress  chose  a  committee  of  safety  and  placed  at 
its  head  Dr.  Joseph  Warren,  one  of  the  most  active  and  resourceful 
of  the  early  Revolutionary  leaders.  Early  in  1775  another  Pro- 
vincial Congress  was  assembled,  and  it  entered  actively  upon  the 
task  of  putting  the  colony  on  a  war  footing.  The  militia  was 
strengthened,  officers  appointed,  bodies  of  "  minutemen  "  ready  to 
act  at  a  moment's  warning  were  organized,  and  soon  every  village 
square  was  the  scene  of  active  military  drill. 

Everywhere  there  was  evidence  of  rebellion  against  British 


226  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1775 

authority;  in  every  heart  there  was  the  feeling  that  death  itself 
was  preferable  to  submission.  The  British  had  found  it  impossible 
to  enforce  the  Regulating  Act  in  Massachusetts ;  royal  officers  were 
forced  to  resign,  juries  were  awed  and  intimidated  into  rendering 
verdicts  against  the  Crown  wherever  the  rights  of  the  people  were  at 
issue;  the  courts  were  broken  up  and  Gage  found  himself  powerless, 
for  no  one  would  work  for  him  or  sell  him  supplies.  He  attributed 
most  of  his  troubles  to  the  "  seditious  "  utterances  and  activities 
of  Samuel  Adams  and  John  Hancock,  the  two  chief  arch-conspira- 
tors, and  after  vainly  endeavoring  to  win  over  Adams  by  bribery, 
he  undertook  to  arrest  both  in  pursuance  of  instructions  from  the 
king,  that  they  should  be  sent  to  England  for  trial.  But  both  were 
among  friends  who  shielded  them  from  the  king's  officers,  and 
while  they  deemed  it  the  better  part  of  valor  to  elude  the  royal 
officers,  they  did  not  cease  their  opposition  to  the  late  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment. 

On  April  15,  having  learned  that  both  Adams  and  Hancock 
were  staying  at  a  house  in  Lexington,  a  village  nine  miles  northwest 
of  Boston,  Gage  secretly  dispatched  an  expedition  of  some  eight 
hundred  troops  with  instructions  to  arrest  the  two  patriot  leaders, 
after  which  they  were  to  proceed  to  Concord,  ten  miles  farther  on, 
and  capture  a  quantity  of  military  supplies  that  had  been  collected 
there  by  the  "  rebels."  Gage,  however,  was  unable  to  conceal  the 
movement  of  the  troops  from  the  vigilance  of  the  patriots,  and  one 
of  their  number,  Paul  Revere,  volunteered  to  ride  to  Lexington  and 
inform  the  citizens  of  the  approach  of  the  regulars.  Booted  and 
spurred,  he  waited  for  a  given  signal  from  a  lantern  hung  in  the 
tower  of  the  Old  North  Church,  which  indicated  the  direction  the 
troops  had  taken,  after  which  he  galloped  away  through  the  dark- 
ness shouting  the  news  at  every  farmhouse  as  he  passed  along. 
Reaching  Lexington  about  midnight,  he  roused  the  sleeping  citizens 
and  informed  Adams  and  Hancock  of  the  coming  of  the  troops  in 
time  for  them  to  escape. 

In  the  gray  dawn  of  April  19,  Major  Pitcairn,  who  had  been 
sent  forward  with  several  companies  of  infantry,  entered  the  quiet 
village  only  to  find  himself  confronted  by  a  well-drilled  company 
of  minutemen  under  the  command  of  Captain  Parker,  a  veteran  of 
the  French  and  Indian  War.  Riding  up,  Pitcairn  commanded  them 
with  an  oath  to  disperse,  but  not  a  man  budged.  Thereupon  he  gave 
the  command  to  lire,  and  after  some  hesitation  his  troops  obeyed, 


THE     RUPTURE  227 

1775 

killing  seven  of  the  Americans  and  wounding  ten  others.  The 
minutemen  bravely  returned  the  fire,  but  being  greatly  outnum- 
bered, prudently  retired  and  waited  for  reinforcements. 

The  British  troops  marched  on  to  Concord  unopposed,  only  to 
find  that  the  bulk  of  the  arms  and  ammunition  had  been  removed 
from  the  town  and  concealed  by  the  inhabitants.  The  only  damage 
the  invaders  did  was  to  cut  down  the  "  liberty  pole,"  disable  a  few 
cannon  and  destroy  a  small  quantity  of  supplies.  While  this  was 
going  on  a  force  of  some  400  minutemen  fell  upon  a  detachment  of 
200  regulars  which  had  been  left  to  guard  the  bridge  north  of  the 
town,  and  chased  them  back  to  the  village.  The  British,  realizing 
their  perilous  situation,  now  determined  to  return  to  Boston.  By 
this  time  the  adjacent  country  was  well  aroused  and  troops  were 
swarming  to  the  scene  from  every  quarter,  and  as  the  regulars 
marched  back  toward  Lexington  they  were  harassed  and  shot  by 
the  farmers,  who  concealed  themselves  behind  hedges,  trees,  rocks 
and  other  natural  objects.  The  British  retreat  soon  degenerated 
into  an  utter  route.  All  was  disorder  and  confusion;  the  day  was 
dry  and  hot,  and  the  soldiers  were  well-nigh  exhausted  from  their 
long  march.  At  Lexington  they  were  saved  by  the  arrival  of  Lord 
Percy,  who  with  1,200  men  had  been  sent  to  their  rescue.  Thus 
reenforced,  the  British  held  the  Americans  at  bay  and  gained  time 
for  rest  and  refreshment,  after  which  they  resumed  their  march 
to  Boston.  But  the  roadside  along  which  they  now  traveled  was 
fairly  alive  with  American  troops.  They  flew  at  the  retreating 
British  from  every  direction  and  gave  them  one  continual  battle 
from  Lexington  to  Boston.  Finally,  at  sundown,  the  retreating 
soldiers,  weary  and  with  depleted  ranks,  reached  Charlestown, 
where  they  found  a  welcome  cover  afforded  by  the  gunboats.  Al- 
together they  had  lost  273  men,  while  the  Americans  had  lost  less 
than  100. 

The  battles  of  Lexington  and  Concord  were  the  first  of  the 
Revolution,  and  so  far  as  moral  results  were  concerned  were  a 
distinct  victory  for  the  Americans.  The  British  forces  had  barely 
escaped  capture  and  the  fighting  qualities  of  the  Americans  had 
been  abundantly  shown.  If  further  evidence  was  needed  that  they 
could  not  be  frightened  into  abject  submission  by  the  presence  of 
a  British  regiment,  it  was  furnished  by  the  retreat  from  Concord. 
The  news  of  the  affair  spread  rapidly,  and  from  all  parts  of  the 
colony  troops  began  to  pour  into  the  vicinity  of  Boston.     Leaders 


228  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1775 

like  Israel  Putnam,  who,  according  to  the  story,  left  his  plow  in 
the  field,  John  Stark,  Benedict  Arnold,  and  others,  came  at  the 
head  of  well-drilled  companies,  and  within  three  days  it  was  esti- 
mated that  not  less  than  16,000  American  volunteers  had  gathered 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Boston  and  were  ready  to  begin  a  siege 
of  the  town.  Everywhere  the  people  rose  in  revolt  against  the 
royal  authorities,  and  in  a  short  time  British  rule  in  America  had 
utterly  collapsed.  The  royal  governors  were  compelled  to  abandon 
their  governments;  some  of  them  resigned,  others  returned  to 
England,  while  still  others  took  refuge  on  near-by  war  vessels  and 
went  through  the  hollow  form  of  attempting  to  govern  their 
provinces  from  a  distance.  Nowhere  was  there  a  thought  of 
submission  or  reconciliation.  On  May  11,  three  weeks  after  the 
battle  of  Lexington,  Ethan  Allen,  a  "  Green  Mountain  "  patriot, 
with  a  handful  of  backwoodsmen,  captured  the  fortress  of  Ti- 
conderoga  in  eastern  New  York,  and  a  little  later  Crown  Point, 
on  Lake  Champlain,  also  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Americans,  with 
a  large  number  of  cannon  and  a  quantity  of  ammunition.  Such 
were  the  beginnings  of  a  revolution  which  was  destined  to  result 
in  the  independence  of  the  American  colonies,  and  which  was  to 
have  political  consequences  of  tremendous  import  to  the  future  of 
mankind. 


Chapter  X 


REVOLUTION   AND    INDEPENDENCE 
1775-1776 


THE   SECOND    CONTINENTAL    CONGRESS 

ON  May  10,  1775,  the  very  day  on  which  Ticonderoga  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  Americans,  the  second  Continental 
Congress  came  together  at  Philadelphia,  in  pursuance  of 
a  resolution  of  the  preceding  Congress.  The  address  to  the  king 
drawn  up  by  the  last  Congress  had  been  unanswered,  and  instead 
of  redressing  the  grievances  set  forth  therein,  the  king  had  re- 
solved upon  the  subjugation  of  his  rebellious  American  subjects. 
Important  events  had  taken  place  since  the  adjournment  of  the 
Congress  in  October;  an  armed  conflict  had  occurred  between  the 
royal  forces  and  the  American  militia,  and  blood  had  been  shed 
on  American  soil.  As  a  result  the  country  was  rising  in  arms, 
and  already  the  British  forces  were  besieged  in  the  town  of  Boston, 
and  the  king  was  preparing  to  send  to  their  aid  large  reinforce- 
ments from  England. 

Among  the  delegates  chosen  to  the  second  Continental  Con- 
gress were  the  two  Adamses,  the  Livingstons,  Edward  and  Robert, 
John  Jay,  Patrick  Henry,  Richard  Henry  Lee,  and  George  Wash- 
ington, all  of  whom  had  been  members  of  the  first  Congress.  In 
addition  to  these  were  two  new  members  who  were  destined  to 
win  great  fame  in  American  history,  namely,  Thomas  Jefferson, 
who  had  just  turned  his  thirty-second  year,  and  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, already  the  most  widely  known  man  in  America.  Another 
new  member  was  John  Hancock,  who,  after  eluding  the  British 
at  Lexington,  had  hastened  to  Philadelphia  to  be  present  at  the 
opening  of  Congress.  Hated  and  proscribed  by  the  British,  he 
was  very  popular  among  the  patriots  of  America,  and  the  Congress 
made  him  its  president,  partly  "  to  show  Great  Britain  how  much 
they  valued  her  proscriptions."  Like  the  preceding  Congress,  this 
one  was  a  revolutionary  body,  a  sort  of  advisory  organ,  assem- 

229 


230  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1775 

bled  without  legal  authority,  and  consequently  without  constitu- 
tional power  to  enact  legislation  binding  on  the  colonies.  Never- 
theless, during  the  course  of  the  long  war  that  now  ensued  it  as- 
sumed both  legislative  and  administrative  functions,  as  a  matter 
of  necessity,  always  relying,  of  course,  upon  the  acquiescence  of 
the  people  as  the  measure  of  its  powers.  It  was  the  only  general 
legislative  body  for  the  colonies  during  a  period  when  some  such 
authority  was  absolutely  necessary,  and  the  fact  that  the  colonies 
acquiesced  in  its  acts,  unsupported  by  legal  authority  as  they  were, 
must  always  stand  as  high  evidence  of  their  unity  of  purpose  and 
patriotism.  The  great  and  almost  only  task  of  the  Congress  was 
to  raise,  organize  and  support  the  army.  One  of  its  first  duties, 
and  at  the  same  time  probably  the  wisest  and  most  far-reaching  of 
its  acts,  was  the  selection  of  George  Washington  as  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  army. 

The  Continental  Army  at  this  time  consisted  mainly  of  raw, 
untrained  New  England  militia,  and  the  selection  of  a  Virginia 
planter,  upon  the  nomination  of  a  New  Englander,  John  Adams, 
to  organize  and  command  them,  was  striking  evidence  of  the  de- 
termination to  sink  local  prejudices  and  present  a  united  front  to 
the  enemy.  All  the  more  was  this  true  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
several  prominent  New  England  men,  chief  of  whom  was  Hancock, 
desired  the  position  of  commander-in-chief.  At  the  time,  Wash- 
ington was  colonel  of  the  Virginia  militia,  and  his  experience  in 
the  French  and  Indian  War,  his  fondness  for  military  service,  and 
his  natural  genius  as  a  commander  made  him  eminently  qualified, 
as  subsequent  events  showed,  for  the  high  office  to  which  he  was 
now  called ;  in  fact,  there  was  no  one  who  could  for  a  moment 
be  compared  with  him  in  fitness.  In  the  debates  of  the  Congress 
Washington  had  taken  no  part,  so  far  as  the  record  shows,  but 
"  for  solid  information  and  sound  judgment,"  said  Patrick  Henry, 
"  he  was  unquestionably  the  greatest  man  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress." 1  With  becoming  modesty  he  now  rose  in  his  seat  and  in 
trembling  voice  said,  "  But  I  beg  it  may  be  remembered  by  every 
gentleman  in  this  room  that  I  this  day  declare  with  utmost  sin- 
cerity I  do  not  think  myself  equal  to  the  command  I  am  honored 
with."  Nevertheless,  he  agreed  to  "  enter  upon  the  momentous 
duty,"  and  announced  that  he  would  accept  no  pay  for  his  services, 

1  T.odge,    "  Life   of   Washington,"   vol.    i.    p.    127. 


INDEPENDENCE  231 

1775 

but  would  keep  an  account  of  his  personal  expenses,  which  Con- 
gress might  reimburse  if  it  wished  at  the  close  of  the  war. 

In  addition  to  selecting  Washington  as  commander-in-chief, 
Congress  appointed  four  major-generals,  Ward,  Lee,  Schuyler  and 
Putnam,  and  eight  brigadiers;  it  also  authorized  the  issue  of  two 
million  dollars  of  paper  currency,  set  apart  a  day  of  prayer  and 
fasting,  and  recommended  the  States  to  adopt  constitutions  and 
organize  local  governments  in  place  of  the  defunct  British  authority 
—  a  recommendation  which  they  all  followed  in  the  course  of  the 
next  two  years. 

II 

BUNKER    HILL   AND   BOSTON 

While  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia  was  providing  for  the 
organization  and  equipment  of  the  "  Continental  Army,"  affairs 
were  reaching  a  crisis  at  Boston.  Fifteen  or  twenty  thousand 
American  volunteers  were  encamped  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
town,  while  the  arrival  of  Clinton,  Howe  and  Burgoyne  with  re- 
enforcements  from  England  had  increased  Gage's  strength  to  over 
ten  thousand  men.  The  American  army,  under  the  command  of 
General  Artemas  Ward,  was  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  great 
semicircle  about  sixteen  miles  in  length,  stretching  from  Cam- 
bridge to  Charlestown  Neck,  while  the  British  forces  occupied 
Boston.  At  this  juncture  Gage,  feeling  confident  of  victory,  issued 
a  proclamation  offering  amnesty  to  all  "  rebels  "  who  would  lay 
down  their  arms  and  return  peaceably  to  their  homes.  Excepted 
from  the  benefits  of  the  proposed  amnesty,  however,  were  Adams 
and  Hancock,  the  chief  conspirators,  in  Gage's  opinion,  and  who, 
if  captured,  were  to  be  summarily  hanged.  The  proclamation  had 
no  more  effect  than  if  it  had  been  issued  against  the  moon  — 
hardly  a  man  returned  to  his  allegiance.  Gage,  now  feeling  cer- 
tain that  he  would  have  to  fight  in  order  to  hold  Boston,  and 
fearing  that  the  rebels  would  seize  some  of  the  surrounding  hills 
and  make  his  position  untenable,  decided  to  occupy  the  two  most 
important  of  these  defenses,  namely,  Bunker  Hill  and  Dorchester 
Heights,  to  the  north  and  south  of  the  town,  respectively. 

Learning  of  Gage's  intention  in  this  respect,  the  Americans 
resolved   to   forestall   him,   and   on  the   night   of  June    16,    1775. 


232 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1775 


General  Ward  dispatched  1.200  men  under  Colonel  Prescott  to 
take  possession  of  Bunker  Hill.  Disregarding  orders,  they  passed 
over  that  hill  and  occupied  Breed's  Hill,  a  lower  elevation  between 
Bunker  Hill  and  the  Charles  River.  On  the  morrow  the  British 
were  astonished  to  find  that  they  had  been  forestalled  by  the  vigi- 
lant Americans,  who  were  now  strongly  posted  behind  intrench- 
ments  on  the  eminence  which  they  had  expected  to  occupy  them- 
selves. Instead  of  sending  a  detachment  to  cut  the  Americans 
off  at  Charlestown  Neck,   as  he  might  have  done  with  success, 


BOSTON  AND  ENVIRONS 


Gage  decided  to  attack  them  from  the  front  and  drive  them  back 
over  the  hill.  Accordingly,  3,000  troops  under  General  Howe 
were  sent  across  the  river,  and  in  the  afternoon  of  June  17  they 
started  up  the  ascent  prepared  to  storm  the  breastworks  of  the 
enemy.  The  Americans  calmly  withheld  their  fire  until  the  British 
troops  were  within  convenient  range,  when  suddenly  they  poured 
a  terrible  volley  into  the  ranks  of  the  enemy  and  sent  them  down 
the  hillside  in  utter  rout  and  confusion.  Recovering  their  equanim- 
ity after  a  brief  pause  the  British  advanced  to  a  second  charge, 
only  to  be  driven  back  again  with  frightful  losses.     Toward  five 


INDEPENDENCE  233 

1775 

o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  to  the  amazement  of  everybody  but  the 
British  themselves,  a  third  assault  was  made  with  remarkable 
courage  and  desperation.2 

In  the  meantime  the  American  supply  of  powder  having  run 
short  and  their  muskets  being  without  bayonets,  Prescott's  men 
were  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  repelling  the  attack  of  the  enemy 
with  their  gunstocks,  which  were  used  as  clubs.  Under  these 
circumstances  the  Americans  were  driven  back,  and  the  British 
were  left  in  possession  of  the  hill.  The  British  loss  in  killed  and 
wounded  was  something  over  1,000  men,  that  of  the  Americans 
being  less  than  half  that  number.  The  loss  of  officers  among  the 
British  was  especially  heavy,  among  the  killed  being  Major  Pit- 
cairn.  The  Americans  suffered  an  irreparable  loss  in  the  death 
of  Dr.  Joseph  Warren,  who  was  shot  while  imprudently  lingering 
on  the  field  after  the  close  of  the  battle.  With  the  Adamses, 
Hancock  and  Otis,  he  was  one  of  the  leading  patriots  of  New 
England,  and  had  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  events  by 
which  the  Revolution  was  inaugurated.  From  the  standpoint  of 
purely  military  results  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill  (or  more  prop- 
erly, Breed's  Hill)  was  an  English  victory  and  enabled  Gage  to 
hold  Boston  nine  months  longer.  But  the  moral  advantages  were 
largely  with  the  Americans,  for  until  disabled  by  the  exhaustion 
of  their  ammunition  they  had  shown  themselves  more  than  a  match 
for  the  enemy.  Instead  of  discouragement  at  the  result  there  was 
general  elation,  while  praises  for  the  fighting  qualities  of  the  New 
England  militiamen  were  widely  expressed,  both  in  America  and 
in  Europe.3 

Two  weeks  after  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  Washington, 
after  a  tiresome  journey  of  eleven  days  by  stage  from  Philadelphia, 
arrived  at  Cambridge,  and  on  July  3  took  command  of  the  "  Con- 
tinental Army,"  of  some  sixteen  thousand  men.4  All  were  New 
England  militiamen,  and  all,  except  about  five  thousand,  were  in- 
habitants of  Massachusetts.  Shortly  afterward  they  were  reen- 
forced  by  some  three  thousand  troops  from  Pennsylvania,  Mary- 
land and  Virginia.  Washington's  journey  to  Boston  had  been 
in  the  nature  of  an  ovation,  and  his  assumption  of  the  chief  com- 

2  See  Lodge,    "  Story  of  the   Revolution,"   ch.  v. 

3  Fiske,   "  The  American   Revolution,"  vol.   i.  pp.    137-146.     Winsor,   "  Nar- 
rative and  Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  pp.  130-140. 

i  Lodge,  "  Life  of  Washington,"  vol.  i.  p.  134. 


234  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1775 

mand  was  attended  by  every  circumstance  of  popular  rejoicing. 
Among  his  subordinate  commanders  who  were  destined  to  achieve 
fame  in  the  near  future  were  Nathanael  Greene,  who,  next  to 
Washington,  was  the  greatest  soldier  the  war  produced;  John 
Stark  of  New  Hampshire,  who  had  already  in  the  battle  of 
Bunker  Hill  given  evidence  of  his  brave  and  rugged  character; 
Daniel  Morgan,  the  gallant  leader  of  a  company  of  Virginia  sharp- 
shooters ;  Benedict  Arnold  of  Connecticut,  a  brilliant  soldier,  whose 
promising  career  was  to  have  a  sad  ending;  and  Henry  Knox,  a 
Boston  book-dealer,  who  was  destined  to  become  one  of  the  first 
Cabinet  officers  under  the  Constitution,  and  one  of  the  most  trusted 
advisers  of  Washington. 

Never  was  the  task  of  a  military  commander  greater  than 
that  which  faced  Washington  when  he  took  charge  of  the  Conti- 
nental troops  under  the  shades  of  the  great  Cambridge  elm.  With- 
out uniforms,  armed  with  every  variety  of  weapon,  having  no 
commissariat  worth  the  name,  untrained,  undisciplined,  and  hardly 
yet  having  learned  the  lesson  of  military  subordination,  this  motley 
crowd  of  farmers,  fishermen,  and  shopkeepers  presented  a  spectacle 
which  was  enough  to  discourage  the  most  experienced  of  com- 
manders. Nevertheless,  it  afforded  a  body  of  excellent  raw  ma- 
terial, and  out  of  this  Washington  proceeded  to  organize  an  army. 
Many  of  the  men  had  volunteered  for  short  periods,  and  as  their 
terms  of  enlistment  expired  they  insisted  on  going  home,  and  many 
of  them  went.  The  work  of  reenlisting  proceeded  apace ;  in  fact, 
the  army  was  practically  disbanded  and  reenlisted  within  cannon- 
shot  of  the  enemy. 

For  months  Washington  toiled  away  drilling  the  men,  re- 
enlisting  those  whose  terms  had  expired,  securing  arms  and  am- 
munition and  creating  a  commissariat.5  During  this  period  of 
preparation  and  organization  no  active  military  operations  were 
undertaken  except  an  invasion  of  Canada  in  the  autumn,  largely 
in  the  hope  of  freeing  the  Canadians  from  British  rule  and  attach- 
ing them  to  the  American  cause.  In  the  latter  part  of  August, 
General  Richard  Montgomery,  with  some  2,000  men,  set  out  from 
Fort  Ticonderoga  and  in  November  captured  Montreal.  To  aid 
Montgomery  in  what  promised  to  be  a  highly  successful  campaign, 
Washington,    in    September,    sent    Colonel    Benedict   Arnold    with 

5  For  an   interesting  account  of  this   phase   of  the   Revolution,   see    Hatch, 
'  The  Administration  of  the   Revolutionary  Army." 


INDEPENDENCE  235 

1775-1776 

1,200  men  to  join  Montgomery's  forces  in  the  attack  on  Quebec. 
After  a  march  of  more  than  a  month  through  the  dense  wilderness 
of  Maine,  during  which  the  men  suffered  indescribable  hardships 
from  cold  and  hunger,  their  flesh  torn  and  lacerated  by  thorns 
and  briers,  exhausted  by  fatigue  and  tormented  by  disease,  the 
expedition  reached  the  neighborhood  of  Quebec  early  in  December. 
On  the  last  day  of  the  year  1775,  while  a  blinding  snowstorm  was 
raging,  the  two  armies  made  a  combined  attack  on  the  city.  Al- 
though the  Americans  fought  with  a  courage  amounting  to  des- 
peration, they  were  driven  back  with  frightful  losses,  the  gallant 
Montgomery  being  among  the  killed.  Such  was  the  disastrous 
ending  of  one  of  the  most  daring  and  heroically  conducted  cam- 
paigns of  the  Revolution.6 

After  about  eight  months  of  organizing  and  drilling  Wash- 
ington was  at  last  ready  to  begin  the  attack  upon  Boston.  A 
great  quantity  of  cannon  had  been  collected,  some  of  them  dragged 
on  sledges  all  the  way  from  Ticonderoga,  where  they  had  been 
captured  by  Ethan  Allen  the  year  before,  and  thus  equipped  the 
operations  were  begun  in  earnest  against  the  British.  Washing- 
ton's first  move  was  to  seize  and  occupy,  on  the  night  of  March  4, 
1776,  Dorchester  Heights,  which  commanded  the  town  from  the 
south,  as  Bunker  Hill  did  from  the  north.  All  night  long  the 
Americans  labored  with  pick  and  shovel,  and  when  the  British 
awoke  on  the  morning  of  March  5  they  were  astonished  to  find 
two  thousand  men  strongly  intrenched  behind  earth-works,  and 
ready  to  begin  the  bombardment  of  the  British  vessels  in  the  har- 
bor. Howe  was  greatly  puzzled  to  know  what  to  do.  His  first 
thought  was  to  storm  the  American  works,  but  it  soon  became 
evident  that  only  disaster  could  result  from  such  an  attempt,  and 
it  was  accordingly  abandoned.  Nothing  seemed  left  but  to  evacu- 
ate the  city,  and  on  March  17,  his  whole  army  of  8,000  troops, 
together  with  a  considerable  number  of  loyalists,  who  were  resolved 
to  sacrifice  their  all  for  the  mother  country,  sailed  away  to  Halifax, 
leaving  to  the  enemy  two  hundred  cannon,  a  quantity  of  small  arms 
and  a  large  amount  of  ammunition.  Thus  by  one  brilliant  stroke, 
and  almost  without  the  loss  of  a  man,  New  England  was  freed 
from  the  rule  of  the  British.7 

6  Read  Codman,  "  Arnold's  March  to  Quebec." 

7  Fiske,    "The   American    Revolution,"  vol.   ii.   p.    172;   Winsor,   "Narrative 
and  Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  158. 


236  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776 

While  Washington  was  besieging  Boston  several  noteworthy 
events  were  happening  in  the  southern  colonies.  The  first  of  these 
was  the  burning  of  Norfolk,  the  principal  town  of  Virginia,  by 
Lord  Dunmore,  the  royalist  governor,  who,  having  stirred  up  the 
wrath  of  the  Virginians,  had  been  compelled  to  take  refuge  on  a 
war  vessel  in  the  harbor.  On  January  i,  1776,  Dunmore  set  fire 
to  the  town  to  prevent  its  falling  into  the  hands  of  a  body  of 
patriot  troops,  and  laid  it  completely  in  ashes.  In  the  same  month 
General  Clinton  with  2,000  troops  was  sent  from  Boston  to  take 
possession  of  the  southern  colonies  and  hold  them  for  the  Crown, 
being  subsequently  joined  by  Sir  Peter  Parker  with  a  fleet  of  ten 
ships  and  seven  regiments  from  England.  Meantime,  a  body  of 
1,000  troops  under  Colonel  Richard  Caswell  had  defeated  and 
utterly  routed  2,000  Scotch  Highlander  Tories  under  the  leadership 
of  Donald  MacDonald,  on  Moore's  Creek,  North  Carolina,  in 
February,  1776.  Immediately  following  this  brilliant  victory,  the 
North  Carolina  patriots  flew  to  arms  in  such  numbers  that  Clinton 
was  afraid  to  land.  After  cruising  up  and  down  the  North  Caro- 
lina coast  for  some  time,  he  decided  to  capture  Charleston  with 
the  aid  of  Parker's  fleet,  which  had  now  arrived,  and  thus  provide 
a  refuge  for  the  large  number  of  loyalists  which  he  was  made  to 
believe  were  settled  in  South  Carolina.  On  June  28  the  combined 
fleets  attacked  Fort  Moultrie,  which  the  Americans  had  hastily  con- 
structed, mostly  out  of  palmetto  logs,  but  the  British  fire  was  un- 
availing. The  British  fleet  was  badly  injured  and  more  than  200 
of  their  men  were  lost;  the  American  fort  was  little  damaged  and 
their  loss  was  inconsiderable.  After  ten  hours  of  fruitless  bom- 
bardment the  British  fleet  sailed  away  and  later  returned  to  New 
York,  leaving  the  southern  colonies  unmolested  for  nearly  three 
years  longer,  after  which  they  became  the  chief  seat  of  military 
operations  and  continued  as  such  until  the  close  of  the  war.8 

Ill 

THE   DECLARATION    OF    INDEPENDENCE 

In  the  meantime  a  strong  sentiment  was  growing  up  among 
the  colonies  in  favor  of  formally  renouncing  all  allegiance  to  the 
king  and  declaring  themselves  independent  of  the  mother  country. 

8  Lodge,    "  Story    of    the    Revolution,"    ch.    vi. 


BENJAMIN'     FRAXKI.TX 

(Born,    1  :<m;.      Died,    1790) 

Painting  by  Joseph  SilfrCde  Durlcs.us,  Art  Museum,  Boston 


INDEPENDENCE  23? 

1776 

During  the  first  stages  of  the  war  hardly  any  American  of  prom- 
inence, possibly  with  the  exception  of  Samuel  Adams,  entertained 
any  idea  of  separation.  Benjamin  Franklin  declared  that  what- 
ever else  the  Americans  might  desire,  they  did  not  want  inde- 
pendence, and  Washington  asserted  that  at  the  time  he  took 
command  of  the  army  (July,  1775)  he  abhorred  the  idea  of  sepa- 
ration. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  opinions  of  these  two  leaders 
expressed  the  general  sentiment  of  their  countrymen  in  the  summer 
of  1775.  They  all  hoped  and  prayed  for  a  reconciliation  with  the 
mother  country,  for  there  were  few  who  did  not  feel  a  certain  sense 
of  pride  in  being  a  part  of  the  'great  British  Empire.  It  was 
therefore  with  genuine  regret  that  they  were  forced  to  abandon 
all  hope  of  reconciliation. 

But  by  the  time  of  the  evacuation  of  Boston  a  great  revulsion 
of  sentiment  against  the  continuance  of  the  union  with  Great 
Britain  had  taken  place.  This  was  due  to  a  combination  of  cir- 
cumstances. In  the  first  place,  the  Continental  Congress  had,  in 
July,  1775,  addressed  a  respectful  petition  to  the  king,  praying 
for  a  repeal  of  those  statutes  of  Parliament  which  had  borne  with 
so  much  oppression  upon  the  Americans.  This  "  olive-branch  " 
petition  the  king  contemptuously  refused  to  receive,  and  in  the  place 
of  an  answer  issued  a  proclamation  denouncing  the  Americans  as 
a  dangerous,  ill-designing  and  rebellious  people.  This,  in  itself, 
contributed  much  to  the  alienation  of  his  American  subjects  and 
to  the  development  of  a  strong  sentiment  in  favor  of  separation. 

In  addition  to  this  insulting  treatment  of  his  subjects  the  king 
further  aroused  their  indignation  by  hiring  an  army  of  foreign 
soldiers  with  which  to  complete  their  subjugation.  These  were  the 
so-called  "  Hessians,"  about  20,000  in  all,  who  were  hired  from 
the  Landgrave  of  Hesse-Cassel  and  other  German  princes,  after 
an  effort  had  been  made  to  secure  troops  from  Catherine  of  Rus- 
sia.9 They  were  not  mercenaries,  as  is  often  asserted,  for  they 
did  not  voluntarily  engage  to  fight  the  Americans  for  personal 
profit,  but  were  hired  to  the  British  by  their  sovereigns  without 
their  consent,  the  king  agreeing  to  pay  a  fixed  sum  for  each  one 
who  was  killed  outright,   while  three  wounded  men  were  to  be 


9  Fiske,    "  American    Revolution,"    vol.   i.    p.    161 ;    Winsor,   "  Narrative    and 
Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  pp.   18-24. 


238  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776 

counted  as  one  dead.10  Having  no  interest  in  the  war,  many  of 
them  were  easily  induced  to  desert  the  British  upon  promise  of 
grants  of  land  by  Congress. 

The  employment  of  foreign  troops  against  the  Americans  was 
bitterly  condemned  by  some  of  the  leading  members  of  Parliament 
as  impolitic  and  incompatible  with  the  rules  of  legitimate  warfare. 
In  America  it  created  intense  indignation  and  cost  the  king  the 
most  of  the  friends  he  had  left  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  Thou- 
sands who  had  been  lukewarm  on  the  subject  of  independence  now 
became  enthusiastic  supporters  of  a  declaration  severing  all  con- 
nection with  Great  Britain.  Congress  adopted  a  bolder  policy  and 
prepared  for  a  long  struggle,  feeling  certain  that  all  hope  of  recon- 
ciliation was  gone.  In  November,  1775,  it  appointed  a  "  Secret 
Committee  of  Correspondence "  to  communicate  with  friends  of 
America  in  Europe,  and  sent  out  Silas  Deane  to  France  to  procure 
arms  and  other  supplies  for  the  use  of  the  American  army.  Deane 
was  shortly  afterwards  followed  by  other  agents,  and  soon  they 
were  bestirring  themselves  at  various  Continental  capitals  in  the 
endeavor  to  secure  aid  for  the  struggling  colonists.  In  the  same 
month  also  Congress  recommended  to  the  good  people  of  New 
Hampshire,  as  it  had  already  recommended  to  those  of  Massachu- 
setts in  the  preceding  June,  to  adopt  a  constitution  of  government 
in  conformity  with  the  views  of  the  inhabitants,  to  last  during  the 
continuance  of  the  struggle.  Finally,  on  May  15,  1776,  Congress 
recommended  all  the  colonies  to  establish  permanent  governments 
without  regard  to  the  possibility  of  reconciliation.  The  royal 
authority  having  practically  collapsed  everywhere  in  America,  and 
the  colonies  being  without  settled  forms  of  government,  most  of 
them  acted  promptly  upon  the  advice  of  Congress,  and  before  the 
Revolution  had  advanced  very  far  they  had  all  adopted  constitu- 
tions, except  Rhode 'Island  and  Connecticut,  both  of  which  con- 
tinued under  their  liberal  charters  for  many  years  longer. 

Judged  by  the  present-day  standards  these  early  instruments 
of  government  were  a  little  crude  in  content  and  arrangement;  some 
of  them  were  framed  by  Revolutionary  legislatures  or  Provincial 
Congresses,  as  they  were  called,  and  all  but  one  of  them  were 
put  into  effect  without  popular  ratification.  The  most  noted  of 
them  were  the  constitution  of  Virginia,  adopted  in  1776,  and  that  of 
Massachusetts  of  1780.  The  former  was  accompanied  by  an  elab- 
10  Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.   123. 


INDEPENDENCE  239 

1776 

orate  bill  of  rights  drawn  up  by  George  Mason  and  containing  the 
most  admirable  statement  of  the  principles  of  American  civil  liberty 
then  in  existence.  The  Massachusetts  constitution,  drawn  mainly 
by  John  Adams,  likewise  contained  a  lengthy  bill  of  rights,  and 
as  a  whole  the  constitution  was  so  satisfactory  that  it  has  been 
retained  in  all  essential  particulars  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts 
until  this  day.11 

Public  sentiment  in  favor  of  separation  from  Great  Britain 
was  further  crystallized  by  the  arguments  of  Thomas  Paine  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled  "  Common  Sense,"  published  in  January,  1776, 
and  soon  spread  broadcast  over  the  country.  Containing  a  good 
deal  of  scurrilous  abuse  of  the  English  people,  it  was,  nevertheless, 
replete  with  sensible  argument  in  favor  of  the  advantages  to  be 
derived  from  a  declaration  of  independence.  The  pamphlet  found 
thousands  of  readers;  in  fact,  the  primitive  presses  of  the  time 
could  not  supply  the  demand,  and  many  who  were  lukewarm  were 
thoroughly  convinced  by  Paine's  logic  of  the  expediency  of  in- 
dependence. 

As  a  result  of  these  several  causes  the  people  of  the  colonies, 
in  the  spring  of  1776,  had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  Congress 
should  proclaim  a  formal  separation  from  the  mother  country. 
The  first  colony  to  take  official  action  was  North  Carolina,  whose 
provincial  Congress,  on  April  12,  instructed  its  delegates  in  the 
Continental  Congress  "  to  concur  with  the  delegates  of  the  other 
colonies  in  declaring  independency."  Other  colonies  soon  followed 
the  example  of  North  Carolina.  Finally  Virginia  took  an  ad- 
vanced step  on  May  6  by  instructing  her  delegates  to  propose  to 
the  members  from  the  other  colonies  a  declaration  of  independence. 
In  pursuance  of  these  instructions  Richard  Henry  Lee,  chairman 
of  the  Virginia  delegation,  on  June  7,  offered  a  resolution,  "  that 
these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent  States,  that  they  are  absolved  from  all  allegiance  to 
the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection  between  them 
and  the  State  of  Great  Britain  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved." 
After  a  brief  debate  on  this  resolution  it  became  evident  that  the 
delegates   were   not   ready  to  vote,   most  probably   because   they 

11  For  a  learned  discussion  of  tht  legal  aspects  of  Revolutionary  constitu- 
tion-making, see  Jameson,  "  The  Constitutional  Convention,"  sects.  125-169. 
See  also  Morey,  "  Revolutionary  State  Constitutions  "  in  "  Annals  of  the  Amer- 
ican Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,"  vol.  iv. 


240  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776 

preferred  to  get  instructions  from  their  constituents  before  taking 
action  on  so  vital  a  question.  Upon  motion,  therefore,  further 
discussion  was  postponed  until  July  i,  by  which  time  the  States 
could  be  heard   from. 

Meantime  a  committee  consisting  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Ben- 
jamin Franklin,  John  Adams,  Roger  Sherman,  and  Robert  R. 
Livingston  was  appointed  to  make  a  draft  of  a  declaration  to  be 
used  in  case  Lee's  motion  should  prevail.  Prompt  action  was 
taken  by  the  States,  and  by  the  time  July  I  arrived  all  except  New 
York  had  empowered  their  delegates  to  vote  for  independence. 
Lee's  resolution  was  now  taken  from  the  table  for  debate,  and  a 
lively  and  protracted  discussion  ensued.  The  great  majority  of  the 
delegates  were  in  favor  of  the  declaration,  but  the  minority  was 
able  and  respectable  and  was  led  by  John  Dickinson,  famous  as 
the  author  of  the  "  Letters  of  a  Pennsylvania  Farmer."  His  prin- 
cipal arguments  were  that  the  proposed  action  was  rash,  that  it 
would  cause  the  Americans  to  lose  their  last  friend  in  England 
and  that  the  declaration  ought  to  be  delayed  until  independence 
had  been  achieved  as  an  actual  fact.  In  spite  of  all  opposition 
Lee's  motion  was  adopted  on  July  2,  all  the  States,  except  New 
York,  voting  in  the  affirmative.  On  July  4  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  was  formally  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote  of 
twelve  colonies,  and  a  little  later  the  New  York  delegates,  having 
received  instructions,  gave  their  adhesion.  The  Declaration  was 
not  signed  on  the  4th.  as  is  popularly  believed,  but  received  the 
signatures  of  the  members  present  on  August  2.12 

The  draft  of  the  Declaration,  probably  the  most  famous  of 
American  state  papers,  was  prepared  by  Thomas  Jefferson,  a 
young  Virginian,  then  but  thirty-three  years  of  age,  and  the 
youngest  member  of  the  committee.  It  began  with  a  recital  of 
certain  "  self-evident  "  truths,  such  as  the  equality  of  man ;  the 
inherent  right  of  life,  liberty,  property,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness; the  doctrine  of  the  consent  of  the  governed  as  the  basis  of 
government,  and  the  right  of  revolution  when  governments  become 
destructive  of  the  ends  for  which  they  are  created.  Then  fol- 
lowed a  long  indictment  against  the  British  king  (Parliament  being 
completely  ignored),  charging  him  with  many  crimes  against  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonies,  one  or  two  of  which,  however. 

12  Winsor,    "The    Narrative    and    Critical    History,"    vol.    vi.    p.    268;    also 
Friedenwald,  "The  Declaration  of  Independence." 


INDEPENDENCE  241 

1776 

were  stricken  out  by  Congress  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not 
well  founded.13  Finally  there  was  the  declaration  also  of  ab- 
solution from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown  and  of  independ- 
ence of  Great  Britain,  for  the  maintenance  of  which  the  signers 
pledged  their  "  lives,  their  fortunes,  and  their  sacred  honor." 

The  news  of  the  adoption  of  the  "  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence "  was  carried  to  all  the  colonies  as  rapidly  as  the  crude  means 
of  communication  then  existing  would  permit,  and  was  received 
by  extraordinary  demonstrations  of  popular  rejoicing.  It  was 
read  at  the  head  ©f  the  army,  from  the  pulpit  and  the  public  plat- 
form, and  was  welcomed  everywhere  with  firing  of  cannon,  ring- 
ing of  bells,  and  pyrotechnic  displays.  Thus  after  years  of  protest 
against  British  tyranny,  after  the  advances  of  the  colonies  in  the 
direction  of  reconciliation  had  been  rejected,  and  armies  sent  over 
to  coerce  them  into  submission,  the  Americans  had  formally  re- 
nounced all  allegiance  to  the  mother  country.  The  die  was  cast, 
"  a  new  empire  had  suddenly  risen  in  the  world,  styled  the  United 
States  of  America."  14 

13  Schouler,  "  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson,"  p.  8o. 

14  See   Lodge,   "  Story   of  the   Revolution,"  ch.   vii. 


Chapter  XI 

THE   WAR   IN   THE   MIDDLE   COLONIES.     1 776-1 778 

I 

LOSS   OF   THE   LOWER    HUDSON 

DRIVEN  out  of  New  England,  and  foiled  in  their  attempt 
to  gain  a  foothold  in  the  south,  the  British  now  conceived 
the  plan  of  capturing  New  York  and  holding  the  line  of 
the  Hudson,  thereby  cutting  the  American  confederacy  in  twain. 
By  isolating  the  New  England  States  from  those  of  the  south 
concert  of  action  among  them  would  be  hindered,  and  thus  they 
might  be  forced  to  return  to  their  allegiance.  According  to  the 
plan  worked  out  by  the  ministry,  General  Howe  was  to  bring  his 
army  from  Halifax  to  New  York,  where  he  was  to  be  joined  by 
the  army  of  Clinton  and  Cornwallis  from  the  south,  and  by  a  fleet 
under  the  command  of  his  brother,  Admiral  Howe,  from  England. 
This  combined  force  was  to  capture  New  York  City  and  occupy 
the  valley  of  the  Hudson,  while  General  Guy  Carleton,  with  another 
army,  reenforced  by  many  of  the  Tories  who  inhabited  New  York, 
was  to  descend  from  Canada  and  form  a  junction  with  Howe's 
army  on  the  upper  Hudson.  The  execution  of  this  well-conceived 
scheme  was  at  once  entered  upon. 

Howe  reached  New  York  in  August,  1776,  but  before  begin- 
ning operations  he  decided  to  offer  the  rebels  an  opportunity  to 
return  to  their  allegiance.  Accordingly  a  letter  offering  a  full 
and  free  pardon  to  all  who  would  lay  down  their  arms  and  aid 
in  restoring  order  was  sent  to  the  American  headquarters  under  a 
flag  of  truce,  addressed  to  "  George  Washington,  Esq."  This 
"  olive-branch  "  communication  "  General  Washington  "  refused  to 
receive,  because  not  properly  addressed,  and  so  hostilities  were 
renewed.  Howe's  combined  army  aggregated  about  20,000  well- 
equipped  and  disciplined  troops,  opposed  to  which  were  about  18,000 
Americans  under  the  command  of  Washington,  who,  divining 
Howe's  purpose,  had  moved  his  army  from  Boston  to  New  York 

242 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE    COLONIES  24# 

1776 

earlier  in  the  year.  General  Greene  had  been  sent  to  occupy  and 
fortify  Brooklyn  Heights  on  Long  Island,  an  eminence  which 
commanded  New  York  much  as  Bunker  Hill  and  Dorchester 
Heights  did  Boston,  and  there,  on  August  27,  one-half  of  the 
American  army,  commanded  by  General  Putnam,  was  attacked 
by  the  British.  The  Americans  were  greatly  outnumbered,  and 
as  a  consequence  were  defeated.  About  400  men  were  killed  and 
wounded  on  each  side,  and  over  1,000  Americans  were  taken  pris- 
oners, among  them  the  brave  General  Sterling.  The  Americans 
now  retired  within  their  works,  and,  being  reenforced  by  troops 
from  New  York,  made  ready  to  resist  the  beseiging  operations  of 
General  Howe.  Upon  sober  second  thought,  however,  Washing- 
ton decided  to  abandon  this  place  and  withdraw  his  army  from 
Long  Island.  Accordingly,  on  the  night  of  x\ugust  29,  having 
collected  every  sloop,  yacht,  fishing-smack,  rowboat  and  other  craft 
to  be  had  on  East  River,  Washington  quietly  transported  his 
army  across  the  river  to  New  York,  without  leaving  behind  a 
man  or  valuable  article  of  any  kind.  Next  morning  Howe  was 
astonished  and  bewildered  to  find  that  the  enemy  had  escaped  and 
his  opportunity  of  capturing  the  American  army  had  been  lost 
through  his  own  lack  of  vigilance  and  energy.  This  successful 
retreat  of  Washington,  involving  as  it  did  the  saving  of  his  army 
from  capture,  was  one  of  the  most  brilliant  military  exploits  in 
the  history  of  the  Revolution,  and  was  the  beginning  of  a  series  of 
events  which  were  to  bring  out  in  striking  relief  his  remarkable 
qualities  as  a  resourceful  and  vigilant  strategist. 

Howe,  however,  soon  followed  in  pursuit,  and  Washington, 
being  unable  with  his  relatively  small  army  to  hold  New  York, 
abandoned  it  to  the  enemy  (September  15)  and  withdrew  to 
Harlem  Heights  north  of  the  city.  On  September  16  the  British 
attacked  the  Americans  at  Harlem  Heights,  near  the  present  site 
of  Columbia  University,  but  were  repulsed  with  considerable  loss. 
The  task  to  which  Howe  now  bent  his  energies  was  to  cut  off 
Washington's  retreat  by  sending  troops  up  the  Hudson  and  East 
Rivers  to  gain  his  rear.  But  on  the  northern  extremity  of  Man- 
hattan Island  British  ascent  by  way  of  the  Hudson  was  obstructed 
by  two  strongholds  on  opposite  banks  of  the  river.  Fort  Wash- 
ington on  the  east,  and  Fort  Lee  on  the  west.  The  East  River 
was  unobstructed,  however,  and  Howe  accordingly  sent  the  greater 
part  of  his  army  up  this  stream  to  Throg's  Neck,  with  the  purpose 


244  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776 

of  gaining  Washington's  rear.  But  the  vigilant  American  com- 
mander was  not  to  be  thus  outwitted,  and  accordingly  changed 
his  base  to  White  Plains,  some  miles  above  Fort  Washington, 
where  his  whole  army  was  presently  concentrated.  Here,  on 
October  28,  the  American  army  was  attacked  by  the  British,  but 
the  attack  was  repulsed,  the  enemy  losing  about  230  men,  the 
Americans  about  150.  Thus  baffled,  Howe  withdrew  to  a  point 
on  the  Hudson  in  the  neighborhood  of  Fort  Washington  with 
the  evident  intention  of  attacking  the  fort  or  crossing  the  river 
into  New  Jersey. 

II 

THE    RETREAT    ACROSS    NEW    JERSEY 

Washington  having  become  convinced  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  hold  the  forts  on  the  Hudson,  neither  of  which  had 
been  effective  in  preventing  ships  from  passing  up  the  river,  de- 
cided to  evacuate  both  and  fortify  West  Point,  a  more  important 
place  up  the  Hudson.  Colonel  Magaw  was  accordingly  instructed 
to  evacuate  Fort  Washington  in  certain  events,  but  before  he  had 
done  so  an  order  from  Congress  was  received  directing  that  the 
fort  be  held.  Magaw  therefore  disregarded  Washington's  orders 
and  made  an  effort  to  hold  the  fort,  but  he  found  it  an  impossible 
task.  On  November  16  Howe  stormed  the  fort,  carried  the  works, 
and  captured  the  entire  garrison,  consisting  of  3,000  of  Washing- 
ton's best-drilled  troops,  together  with  a  large  quantity  of  artillery 
and  small  arms  —  all  of  which  the  Americans  could  ill  afford  to 
spare.  The  captured  Americans  were  subjected  to  some  rather 
rough,  insolent  treatment,  but  the  charge  often  made,  that  the 
surrender  was  followed  by  a  wholesale  butchery  of  the  captives, 
seems  to  be  without  good  foundation.1  The  loss  of  Fort  Wash- 
ington with  the  garrison  and  supplies  was  the  greatest  disaster  that 
the  American  cause  had  suffered  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war, 
and  greatly  depressed  the  spirits  of  the  patriots.  If  the  truth 
must  be  told,  it  was  mainly  due  to  the  meddlesomeness  of  Congress. 
Worse  still,  it  was  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  disasters  which 
threatened  to  end  in  the  utter  overthrow  of  the  American  cause. 

Washington's  army  was  now  divided  by  the  Hudson  River. 

1  See  Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  10. 


WAR    IN     MIDDLE    COLONIES 


245 


1776 

In  this  situation  he  ordered  General  Charles  Lee,  who  was  at  North 
Castle,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Hudson,  to  cross  the  river  and  join 
him  in  the  defense  of  Fort  Lee.  Instead  of  moving  promptly, 
Lee  made  excuses,  and  being  only  too  anxious  to  cause  the  downfall 
of  Washington,  in  the  hope  of  superseding  him  in  the  chief  com- 
mand, he  neglected  to  go  to  the  latter's  relief.     In  the  meantime 


Y 


LOSS  OF  THE  LOWER  HUDSON 

■American  Army   ■■ 
British      -       CD 


a  detachment  from  Howe's  army  had  scaled  the  palisades  and  were 
before  Fort  Lee,  and  General  Greene,  finding  it  impossible  to  hold 
the  fort,  abandoned  it  and  narrowly  escaped  with  his  army,  on 
November  19.  Lee's  men  were  saved,  but  all  his  artillery,  camp 
equipage  and  provisions  were  left  behind  for  the  use  of  the  enemy. 
To  the  outrageous  conduct  of  General  Lee,  more  than  any  other 
circumstance,  was  this  disaster  due.     Lee  was  an  English  soldier 


246  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776 

of  fortune,  who  bad  served  in  various  European  wars  without 
achieving  any  special  distinction.  Deserting  the  English  army, 
he  came  to  America  and  offered  his  services  to  the  Continental 
Congress  for  a  major  general's  commission  and  thirty  thousand 
dollars,  the  estimated  value  of  his  English  estates. 

He  was  chosen  a  major  general  at  the  time  Washington  was 
appointed  commander-in-chief,  and  succeeded  in  making  a  very 
favorable  impression  on  the  Americans.  Indeed,  there  was  a  pop- 
ular belief  at  first  that  he  was  the  most  skillful  soldier  in  the 
American  service,  not  even  excepting  Washington,  and  there  were 
not  a  few  who  were  anxious  that  he  should  have  the  chief  com- 
mand. On  the  other  hand,  there  were  some  who  had  suspicions 
as  to  his  capacity  and  patriotism  from  the  first,  and  subsequently 
the  evidence  became  overwhelming  that  Lee  was  not  only  incom- 
petent, but  distressingly  lukewarm  to  the  American  cause.  He  was 
the  center  of  intrigue  against  Washington,  and  his  neglect  to  go 
to  his  commander's  relief,  in  obedience  to  peremptory  orders,  was 
simply  inexcusable.  He  wrote  letters  to  members  of  Congress 
and  other  persons  of  influence,  attributing  the  recent  disasters  to 
Washington's  incapability,  and  intimated  that  if  he  were  given 
chief  command,  together  with  the  powers  of  a  dictator,  the  late 
misfortunes  would  soon  be  retrieved.  But  fortunately  for  the  suc- 
cess of  the  American  cause  and  the  glory  of  the  American  nation. 
Washington,  whom  Lee  contemptuously  referred  to  as  an  "  old 
church  warden,"  was  retained  in  command  and  implicitly  trusted 
by  the  bulk  of  his  countrymen  to  the  end. 

After  the  abandonment  of  Fort  Lee,  Washington's  army  be- 
gan its  famous  retreat  across  "  the  Jerseys  "  toward  Philadelphia, 
closely  pursued  by  a  part  of  the  British  army  under  the  command 
of  Cornwallis.  The  situation  was  indeed  critical  and  caused  all 
but  the  stoutest  hearts  to  despair  of  American  success,  while  large 
numbers  of  the  Xew  Jersey  farmers,  losing  hope,  accepted  Howe's 
amnesty  offer  and  returned  to  their  British  allegiance.  "  The  con- 
duct of  the  Jerseys,"  wrote  Washington,  "  has  been  most  infamous. 
Instead  of  turning  out  to  defend  their  country  and  offering  aid 
to  our  army,  they  are  making  submissions  as  fast  as  they  can." 
The  seriousness  of  the  situation  was  further  complicated  by  the 
embarrassments  occasioned  from  the  expiration  of  the  terms  of 
enlistment  of  large  numbers  of  the  soldiers,  many  of  whom  it 
proved  difficult  to  induce  to  reenlist. 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE    COLONIES  247 

1776 

The  nominal  strength  of  the  American  army  soon  fell  to 
less  than  six  thousand  men  and  the  real  strength  did  not  exceed 
four  thousand.  Five  thousand  Americans  had  been  taken  prison- 
ers during  the  last  three  months  and  the  contagion  of  desertion 
was  spreading  like  a  plague.  Winter  was  setting  in,  the  supply 
of  tents  and  blankets  was  inadequate,  the  army  had  few  arms 
except  muskets,  and  the  soldiers  were  homesick  and  discouraged. 
The  best  of  them  were  clothed  in  threadbare  garments,  with  worse 
stockings  and  shoes.  Many  of  them  were  overrun  with  vermin, 
and  altogether  the  army  was  in  a  truly  pitiable  condition.  Added 
to  these  difficulties  were  the  discomforts  occasioned  by  inclement 
weather,  incessant  marching,  and  exposure  and  hunger.  At  this 
season  of  the  year  the  country  through  which  they  marched  was 
bare  of  grain,  fruit,  and  vegetable,  so  that  they  were  unable  to 
live  "  off  the  stalk,"  as  did  Sherman's  army  in  the  Civil  War. 
"  They  starved  all  the  way,"  says  one  writer,  "  from  Hackensack 
to  Newark,  and  from  Newark  to  Brunswick;  and  by  the  time  they 
came  in  sight  of  the  Delaware,  those  mothers  and  sisters  who  had 
spun  and  dyed  their  garments  would  with  difficulty  have  recognized 
their  pinched  faces  and  discolored  rags."  Finally  Washington's 
depleted  army  reached  Princeton,  and  on  December  8  it  crossed  the 
Delaware,  after  which  he  seized  every  boat  within  sight  to  prevent 
the  enemy  from  following  in  pursuit.  Meantime,  Lee,  taking  his 
own  time,  had  crossed  the  Hudson  and  was  proceeding  leisurely 
across  New  Jersey  to  Morristown.  Fortunately  for  the  American 
cause,  he  was  captured  by  a  party  of  British  dragoons  on  December 
13,  just  after  he  had  finished  a  letter  to  Gates,  describing  Washing- 
ton as  "  damnably  deficient."  This  capture  of  Lee  was  regarded 
by  the  Americans  as  a  terrible  misfortune,  but  could  they  have 
known  what  historical  investigation  has  since  revealed,  they  would 
have  reckoned  his  riddance  as  one  of  the  happy  incidents  of  the 
campaign. 

In  this  situation,  when  the  gloom  of  despondency  hung  like 
a  pall  over  the  land,  and  when  all  but  the  bravest  hearts  had  lost 
hope,  Washington,  his  little  army  reenforced  to  6,000  men,  resolved 
to  strike  a  desperate  blow,  in  the  hope  of  reviving  the  drooping 
spirits  of  his  countrymen.*     His  project  was  to  recross  the  Dela- 

*  After  the  capture  of  Lee,  General  Sullivan  with  the  remnant  of  the  army 
advanced  rapidly  across  northern  New  Jersey.  Crossing  the  Delaware  at  Easton 
he   marched   quickly   toward   the   southward   and   joined    Washington    in   Bucks 


248  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1776-1777 

ware  and  fall  upon  the  enemy  unawares.  Accordingly,  on  Christ- 
mas night,  1776,  with  an  army  of  2,500  men,  he  braved  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  icefloes  borne  swiftly  along  by  the  powerful  current. 
Not  a  man  or  gun  was  lost;  but  the  cold  was  intense,  the  wind 
high,  and  the  poor  soldiers  left  blood-stained  tracks  as  they 
marched.  For  nine  hours  the  Marblehead  fishermen  contended 
with  ice  and  flood,  but  at  four  o'clock  in  the  morning  the  last 
boatload  of  soldiers  was  safely  landed  on  the  Jersey  side.  Before 
sunrise  the  army  was  on  the  march  for  Trenton,  nine  miles  distant, 
and  toward  evening  came  upon  the  enemy  just  settling  down  to 
thoughts  of  the  Old  World.  After  a  sharp  battle  the  British  were 
defeated,  and  over  1,000  Hessians  were  taken  prisoners,  and  a 
hundred  killed  in  the  fight.  The  American  loss  was  four  men,  two 
frozen  to  death  and  two  killed.  A  thousand  fine  muskets,  forty 
hogsheads  of  rum,  and  a  quantity  of  other  supplies  also  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  Americans,  much  to  their  delight.2  This  brilliant 
victory,  coming  at  a  time  when  the  patriot  cause  was  at  its  lowest 
ebb,  caused  great  rejoicing  among  the  people,  who  had  been  stirred 
to  intense  indignation  against  the  conduct  of  the  German  soldiers 
in  the  employ  of  the  king,  and  greatly  raised  the  spirits  of  the 
little  band  that  had  never  lost  hope  in  the  ultimate  success  of  the 
American  cause.  "  It  may  be  doubted."  says  the  English  historian, 
Trevelyan,  "  whether  so  small  a  number  of  men  ever  employed  so 
short  a  space  of  time  with  greater  and  more  lasting  results  upon 
the  history  of  the  world."  3 

Cornwallis,  receiving  news  of  the  American  victory  at  Trenton 
when  on  the  eve  of  sailing  from  New  York  to  England,  abandoned 
his  proposed  trip  and  hastily  returned  to  Princeton,  from  which 
place  he  proceeded  with  8,000  men  to  march  upon  Trenton. 
Washington  in  the  meantime,  being  convinced  of  the  impossibility 
of  holding  Trenton,  had  retired  to  a  position  on  the  banks  of  the 
Assunpink,  some  miles  to  the  southward.  Here  Cornwallis  decided 
to  attack  him  and  capture  his  army,  or  drive  it  into  the  Delaware. 
Reaching  Trenton  late  in  the  afternoon,  the  British  commander 
retired  to  his  bed  full  of  hope,  saying  that  at  last  he  had  run  the 

Count}-,  Pennsylvania.  However  unfortunate  at  Long  Island,  Sullivan  rendered 
splendid  services  in  the  timely  victory  at  Trenton. — Trevelyan,  "  The  American 
Revolution,"  vol.  ii.  part  ii. 

2  Winsor,  "Narrative  and  Critical  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  264;  Trevelyan,  "The 
American   Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.   112. 

3  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  113. 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  219 

1777 

old  fox  down  and  would  "  bag  him  in  the  morning."  But  the  fox 
was  not  so  easily  bagged  as  the  hunter  had  calculated.  One  of 
Washington's  sources  of  strength  was  his  remarkable  ability  to 
extricate  himself  from  dangerous  positions.  This  had  been  the 
resource  that  had  saved  his  army  more  than  once  since  he  assumed 
the  command  in  July,  1775;  he  was  now  to  employ  it  with  greater 
success  than  ever. 

Keeping  his  camp  fires  burning  all  night  to  deceive  the  British, 
who  lay  in  front  of  him,  he  marched  his  army  quietly  out  of  camp, 
passed  around  Cornwallis's  left  wing,  and  by  sunrise  was  well  on 
the  road  to  Princeton,  the  seat  of  a  college  which  was  the  pride  of 
the  central  colonies.  By  this  means  he  escaped  with  his  entire 
army  as  effectively  as  he  had  done  at  Brooklyn  Heights  the  year 
before. 

When  Cornwallis  awoke  in  the  morning,  to  his  utter  amaze- 
ment the  American  camp  was  empty  and  no  enemy  was  to  be  seen. 
Presently  he  heard  the  boom  of  cannon  in  the  direction  of  Prince- 
ton. It  was  the  noise  of  an  encounter  between  the  Americans  and  a 
detachment  of  British  under  General  Mercer  on  their  way  to 
join  Cornwallis.  The  British  were  as  much  astonished,  said  Gen- 
eral Knox,  to  find  themselves  confronted  by  the  Americans  as  if 
an  army  had  dropped  perpendicularly  upon  them  from  the  clouds. 
But  they  were  not  confounded,  and  at  once  made  ready  for  battle. 
Being  largely  outnumbered  they  were  easily  defeated  by  the  Ameri- 
cans, losing  four  hundred  of  their  men  —  one  hundred  killed  and 
three  hundred  wounded,  among  the  killed  being  General  Mercer. 
The  result  of  the  engagement  was  a  complete  victory  for  the 
Americans.  Realizing  from  the  roar  of  the  distant  cannon  that 
the  Americans  had  escaped  and  were  engaged  with  British,  Corn- 
wallis hastened  off  to  New  Brunswick,  where  a  large  quantity  of 
British  stores  were  collected,  in  order  to  save  them  from  falling 
into  the  hands  of  the  enemy. 

The  victory  of  the  Americans  over  the  British  at  Princeton 
was  all  the  more  welcome  because  of  the  outrageous  conduct  of 
Howe's  army  in  pillaging  the  college  buildings.  Apparently  un- 
restrained by  their  commander,  they  gutted  the  library,  museum 
and  lecture  rooms;  carried  off  or  destroyed  every  volume  on  the 
shelves,  broke  up  the  philosophical  and  mathematical  instruments, 
and  destroyed  various  other  objects  of  value,  among  them  the  cele- 
brated "  orrerv  "  of  Rittenhouse,  said  to  have  been  the  finest  in 


250  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1777 

the  world.  The  dwelling  house  of  the  president  of  the  college,  Dr. 
Witherspoon,  as  well  as  most  other  private  buildings  in  the  town 
and  vicinity,  were  pillaged  by  Howe's  brutal  soldiery.  Hundreds 
of  families  were  reduced  to  poverty  and  ruin  and  left  in  the  middle 
of  winter  to  wander*  through  the  woods  without  clothing.4 

The  most  flagrant  offenders  in  this  particular  were  the  Hes- 
sians, who  regarded  plunder  as  the  right  of  war,  and  indiscrimi- 
nately robbed  all  civilians  with  whom  they  came  in  contact.  Un- 
like the  English  depredators  who,  it  is  said,  were  usually  content 
with  pilfering  chickens  and  pigs,  the  Hessians  entered  dwelling 
houses,  broke  open  wardrobes,  ransacked  drawers  and  carried  off 
every  object  of  value  which  fell  into  their  hands.  After  the  battle 
of  Princeton  Washington  retired  northward  to  the  heights  of 
Morristown,  where  he  went  into  winter  quarters  for  the  rest  of 
the  season.  Thus  during  a  brief  campaign  of  less  than  a  month  he 
had  retrieved  the  disasters  of  the  last  six  months  and  raised  the 
hopes  of  his  despondent  countrymen  to  a  high  pitch.  "  The  most 
important  results  of  Trenton  and  Princeton,"  says  Sir  George  Otto 
Trevelyan,  "  were  not  of  a  temporary  or  local  character.  The 
permanent  and  paramount  consequence  of  those  masterly  operations 
was  the  establishment  of  Washington's  military  reputation  and 
the  increased  weight  of  his  political  and  administrative  authority 
throughout  every  State  of  the  Confederacy."  5  Henceforth  Wash- 
ington's military  capacity  was  generally  recognized,  not  only 
throughout  America,  but  in  Europe  as  well.  "  He  had,"  said  Hor- 
ace Walpole,  "  shown  himself  both  a  Fabius  and  a  Camillus  " ;  and 
his  march  through  the  British  lines  was  conceded  to  be  a  prodigy 
of  leadership.  Even  from  far-away  Prussia  came  the  praise  of 
Frederick  the  Great,  who  is  said  to  have  pronounced  the  recent 
campaign  the  most  brilliant  in  the  annals  of  warfare.  After  the 
close  of  the  war,  at  a  dinner  given  at  the  American  headquarters, 
Cornwallis,  responding  to  a  toast  proposed  by  Washington,  said : 
"  When  the  illustrious  part  that  your  excellency  has  borne  in  this 
long  and  arduous  contest  becomes  a  matter  of  history,  fame  will 
gather  your  brightest  laurels  rather  from  the  banks  of  the  Delaware 
than  from  those  of  the  Chesapeake."  It  is  a  pleasure  to  be  able 
to  record  that  Washington's  soldiers,  who  had  longed  for  an  oppor- 
tunity to  get  at  the  throats  of  the  conscienceless  Hessians  who  had 

4  Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  pp.  31-32. 
*  Ibid.,  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  142. 


WAR    IN     MIDDLE    COLONIES  251 

1777 

devastated  New  Jersey  and  maltreated  the  Americans  at  Fort 
Washington,  did  not  retaliate  at  the  battle  of  Trenton,  but  treated 
the  Hessians  with  magnanimity  and  even  hospitality.  Washington 
set  the  example  and  gave  orders  that  their  knapsacks  and  port- 
manteaus should  be  turned  over  to  them  unopened  and  that  they 
should  be  treated  with  consideration  and  respect.  After  giving 
their  paroles  they  were  taken  to  Philadelphia  where,  strange  to 
say,  they  received  no  little  attention  from  the  inhabitants. 


Ill 

burgoyne's  invasion  and  the  struggle  for  the 
upper  hudson 

The  capture  of  New  York  City,  together  with  Fort  Washing- 
ton and  Fort  Lee,  and  the  driving  of  Washington  out  of  the  State, 
gave  the  British  the  control  of  the  lower  Hudson.  Following  the 
defeat  on  Long  Island,  General  Putnam  had  been  sent  to  Phila- 
delphia, but  in  May,  1777,  was  assigned  to  the  command  of  the 
Continental  army  in  the  highlands  of  New  York.  With  the 
strongholds  in  the  north  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Americans,  the 
British  had  only  made  a  beginning  toward  the  execution  of  their 
project  for  the  separation  of  the  middle  and  eastern  colonies  along 
the  line  of  the  Hudson.  A  renewal  of  efforts  for  the  control  of  the 
upper  Hudson  was  now  entered  upon.  According  to  the  plan 
worked  out  by  Lord  George  Germain,  an  army  under  the  command 
of  General  Burgoyne  was  to  proceed  from  Canada  to  Albany,  New 
York,  recapturing  Ticonderoga  in  the  course  of  the  advance;  an- 
other but  smaller  army,  under  the  command  of  Colonel  St.  Leger, 
was  to  go  by  water  to  Oswego,  thence  across  New  York  State, 
following  the  line  of  the  Mohawk  Valley  and  capturing  Fort  Stan- 
wix,  after  which  he  was  to  join  Burgoyne  at  Albany;  and  finally 
Lord  Howe  was  to  move  at  the  same  time  up  the  river  from  New 
York  and  effect  a  junction  with  the  other  two  armies.  This  project 
of  an  invasion  of  New  York  along  converging  lines  was  well 
worked  out  and  received  the  approval  of  the  ministry  as  one  easy 
of  execution,  and  at  the  same  time,  one  which  would  give  the 
British  control  of  upper  New  York.  But  there  was  an  inherent 
danger  in  the  plan  which  was  destined  to  spoil  it,  namely,  the 
possibility  that  the  junction  of  the  converging  armies  might  be 


252  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1777 

prevented  by  some  unforeseen  circumstance.6  Through  an  over- 
sight of  Lord  George  Germain,  who  at  the  time  was  hurrying 
off  for  his  summer  vacation,  the  dispatch  to  Howe,  ordering  him 
to  move  up  the  river,  was  not  sent,  and  so  Burgoyne  was  deprived 
of  the  cooperation  of  the  army  upon  which  his  success  mainly  de- 
pended.7 Ignorant  of  Howe's  movements,  Burgoyne  with  some 
8,000  troops,  about  one-half  of  whom  were  British  regulars,  set 
out  from  Canada  in  June,  1777,  and  a  month  later  appeared  before 
the  walls  of  Fort  Ticonderoga,  in  New  York.  Since  its  capture  by 
Ethan  Allen  in  the  early  days  of  the  war  the  fort  had  been  greatly 
strengthened,  and  was  now  held  by  a  garrison  of  3,000  men,  under 
the  command  of  General  Arthur  St.  Clair.  It  was  deemed  im- 
pregnable and  probably  could  have  been  easily  held  had  it  not 
been  for  the  blunder  of  St.  Clair  in  allowing  the  British  to  seize 
and  occupy  an  eminence  which  commanded  the  fort  from  the  south. 

The  Americans  had  not  supposed  it  possible  for  the  enemy 
to  scale  this  elevation  with  artillery ;  great,  therefore,  was  their 
amazement  when  on  the  morning  of  July  5  they  awoke  to  find 
Fort  Defiance,  as  the  British  called  the  eminence,  covered  with  red 
coats  and  dotted  with  cannon.  They  were  evidently  trapped,  and 
so  there  was  nothing  to  do  but  surrender  the  fort  and,  if  possible, 
make  their  escape.  Accordingly,  under  the  cover  of  night,  St. 
Clair  transported  his  garrison  across  the  lake  and  set  out  for  the 
Green  Mountains.  Early  in  the  morning  the  British,  being  awak- 
ened by  a  burning  building,  discovered  the  retreating  Americans 
and  soon  set  out  in  hot  pursuit.  Their  rear  guard  was  overtaken 
at  the  village  of  Hubbardton,  and  after  a  sharp  fight  was  badly 
beaten,  losing  about  one-third  of  their  number,  killed  and  wounded. 
A  few  days  later  the  remainder  of  the  garrison  reached  Fort 
Edward,  where  it  joined  the  main  army  under  General  Schuyler. 

The  loss  of  Fort  Ticonderoga  was  a  sore  disappointment 
to  the  Americans,  and  greatly  depressed  their  spirits.  St.  Clair 
was  court-martialed  for  allowing  the  British  to  occupy  Fort  De- 
fiance, but  was  acquitted.  Schuyler  was  also  greatly  censured,  and 
John  Adams  asserted  that  a  general  should  have  been  shot  for 
the  effect  it  would  have.  In  Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  news  caused  great  rejoicing,  and  the  king  declared  that  the 
Americans  were  already  beaten.     Meantime  Burgoyne  had  reached 

,!  Fiske,  "  American  Revolution,"  vol.  i.  p.  263. 
7  Lodge,   "  Story  of  the   Revolution,"  p.  230. 


WAR    IN     MIDDLE    COLONIES  253 

1777 

the  head  of  Lake  Champlain,  at  a  point  about  twenty  miles  from 
Fort  Edward,  where  Schuyler's  army  was  encamped.  To  impede 
his  progress  Schuyler  now  set  to  work  obstructing  the  roads  with 
the  trunks  of  fallen  trees,  destroying  the  bridges  and  filling  up  the 
fords  with  huge  stones  and  logs.  In  the  face  of  these  obstacles 
Burgoyne  was  able  to  push  along  at  the  rate  of  only  a  mile  a  day, 
reaching  Fort  Edward  the  last  of  July,  1777.  Believing  his  po- 
sition to  be  untenable,  Schuyler  abandoned  the  place  and  escaped 
with  his  army  unmolested. 

Burgoyne's  next  move  was  to  send  a  detachment  of  six  hun- 
dred men,  one  hundred  of  whom  were  Indians,  to  the  village  of 
Bennington,  near  the  border  line  between  New  York  and  Vermont, 
for  the  purpose  of  capturing  a  large  quantity  of  stores  and  am- 
munition which  the  Americans  had  gathered  there.  The  detach- 
ment was  commanded  by  Colonel  Baum,  who  proceeded  on  his 
mission  with  the  expectation  of  being  joined  by  large  numbers  of 
loyalists  who,  he  had  been  told,  inhabited  the  Green  Mountain  re- 
gion, and  who  would  flock  to  his  standard  as  soon  as  he  appeared. 
His  expectations,  however,  were  not  realized ;  the  loyalists  proved 
to  be  a  myth,  and  hardly  a  man  came  to  his  aid. 

John  Stark,  who  was  in  command  of  the  Americans,  was 
one  of  the  ablest  generals  on  the  American  side,  and  although 
Congress  had  recently  passed  him  over  in  making  out  its  list  of 
promotions,  a  fact  which  had  caused  his  temporary  retirement,  he 
now  came  forth  from  his  retreat,  quickly  raised  a  force  of  less 
than  one  thousand  men,  and  hastened  to  meet  the  enemy. 

On  August  16,  1777,  Stark's  force,  which  he  divided  into 
two  equal  parts,  attacked  the  British  front  and  rear,  and  after  a 
fierce  fight  which  lasted  two  hours,  completely  routed  them.  Both 
sides  receiving  reinforcements  at  this  juncture,  renewed  the  fight 
and  continued  it  until  dark  —  but  the  Americans  won  the  day,  and 
when  the  results  were  footed  up  it  was  found  that  they  had  killed 
and  wounded  over  200  of  the  enemy  and  taken  about  700  prisoners, 
leaving  less  than  one  hundred  to  escape.  Besides,  they  had  cap- 
tured a  large  quantity  of  small  arms,  both  muskets  and  swords, 
several  valuable  pieces  of  artillery,  and  had  themselves  lost  only 
fourteen  men  killed  and  forty-two  wounded.  This  brilliant  victory, 
in  which  a  body  of  untrained  mountaineers  had  annihilated  a  de- 
tachment of  British  regulars,  greatly  raised  the  hopes  of  the  patriots 
and  led  to  an  inpouring  of  volunteers.     Stark,  to  whom  the  victory 


254  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1777 

was  mainly  due,  was  now  restored  to  the  army  and  promoted  to  the 
rank  of  brigadier  general. 

Two  weeks  before  the  battle  of  Bennington,  St.  Leger,  who 
had  landed  at  Oswego  about  the  middle  of  July,  according  to  the 
ministerial  plan,  and  had  slowly  made  his  way  across  western 
New  York,  arrived  at  the  headwaters  of  the  Mohawk,  a  few  miles 
from  Fort  Stanwix.  He  had,  all  told,  about  1,700  men,  many  of 
whom  were  Tories,  and  a  band  of  Iroquois  Indians  under  the 
leadership  of  their  chief,  Thayendanegea,  better  known  as  Joseph 
Brant.  Fort  Stanwix,  then  on  the  New  York  frontier,  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  erected  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  approach  of  St.  Leger's  motley  army  it  was  garrisoned 
by  about  600  Americans,  a  force  hardly  adequate  to  repel  an 
enemy  of  the  character  which  now  threatened  it.  Nicholas  Herki- 
mer, an  aged  German  resident  of  the  neighborhood,  raised  800 
men  and  went  to  the  relief  of  the  garrison. 

At  Oriskany,  about  eight  miles  from  the  fort,  Herkimer's 
army  was  caught  in  an  ambuscade  prepared  by  Brant,  and  a  ter- 
rible battle  ensued,  which  presently  degenerated  into  a  hand-to-hand 
contest  made  hideous  by  the  terrific  yells  of  the  Indians  and  the 
roar  of  a  heavy  rain  and  thunder  storm.  Wounded  by  a  musket 
ball,  Herkimer  seated  himself  at  the  root  of  a  tree,  lighted  his 
pipe  and  coolly  continued  to  direct  his  men.  Finally,  after  more 
than  500  men  had  been  killed  or  wounded,  the  Tories  and  Indians 
fled,  leaving  Herkimer's  little  band  in  possession  of  the  field. 
About  one-third  of  the  number  engaged  on  each  side  was  lost  in 
this  obstinate  and  sanguinary  contest.  St.  Leger  might  still  have 
taken  the  fort  had  it  not  been  for  the  arrival  a  few  days  later 
of  Benedict  Arnold,  who,  with  1,200  men  had  been  sent  to  the 
relief  of  the  garrison.  Sending  a  half-witted  Tory  into  St.  Leger's 
camp  to  spread  the  story  that  the  American  forces  were  as  nu- 
merous as  the  leaves  of  the  forest,  Arnold  succeeded  in  causing  a 
panic  among  the  enemy.  Apparently  frightened  out  of  their  wits 
at  the  prospect  of  capture,  they  fled,  leaving  behind  their  artillery 
and  supplies  for  the  use  of  the  Americans,  and  scarcely  pausing  for 
breath  until  Oswego  was  reached. 

The  outlook  for  the  American  cause  now  began  to  grow 
brighter.  Unfortunately  at  this  juncture,  however,  Congress,  with 
its  habit  of  meddling,  removed  General  Schuyler  from  the  com- 
mand of  the  army  in  New  York  and  appointed  Gates  in  his  stead. 


WAR    IN    MIDDLE     COLONIES  255 

1777 

For  some  time  Gates  had  been  intriguing  against  Schuyler,  and 
had  persuaded  Congress  to  believe  that  the  latter  officer  was  in- 
efficient. But  the  truth  is,  Schuyler  was  an  able,  patriotic  and 
true-hearted  man,  while  Gates  was  an  unscrupulous,  boastful,  in- 
triguing self-seeker,  whose  military  ability,  as  subsequent  events 
showed,  were  far  over-rated  by  Congress.  Burgoyne's  position 
had  now  become  critical.  St.  Leger's  army,  which  was  expected 
to  cooperate  with  him,  had  been  turned  back  by  the  Americans, 
and  Howe's  army,  on  which  he  mainly  relied,  was  now  in  Penn- 
sylvania marching  in  the  opposite  direction,  wholly  ignorant  of 
the  dispatch  which  Lord  Germain  had  intended  for  it. 

To  retreat  was  impossible;  Burgoyne  therefore  resolved  to 
risk  a  battle  with  the  Americans,  whose  aggregate  strength  now 
amounted  to  15,000  men,  strongly  posted  on  an  eminence  called 
Bemis  Heights,  on  the  west  side  of  the  Hudson.  Toward  the 
middle  of  September  Burgoyne  crossed  to  this  side  of  the  river, 
and  on  the  nineteenth  was  attacked  at  Freeman's  Farm  by  3,000 
Americans  under  the  command  of  Benedict  Arnold.  Being  hard 
pressed  Arnold  sent  imploringly  to  Gates  for  reinforcements,  and 
although  that  officer  had  over  10,000  men  in  reserve,  none  were 
sent.  Nevertheless,  Arnold  kept  up  the  fight  until  dark,  the  re- 
sults being  substantially  in  his  favor.  The  jealous  Gates,  who  had 
refused  to  send  reinforcements,  at  once  claimed  all  the  credit  for 
what  little  had  been  accomplished,  and  in  his  report  to  Congress 
never  so  much  as  mentioned  the  name  of  Arnold.  In  the  course 
of  the  quarrel  that  ensued  Gates  informed  Arnold  that  he  had  no 
further  need  of  his  services,  and  that  he  might  return  to  Wash- 
ington's camp,  if  he  liked.  Upon  the  advice  and  entreaties  of  his 
friends,  however,  Arnold  decided  to  remain  and  take  part  in  the 
decisive  battle  which  was  expected  to  occur  at  an  early  date. 

For  nearly  three  weeks  after  the  fight  at  Freeman's  Farm  the 
two  armies  lay  watching  each  other  and  waiting  for  an  oppor- 
tunity to  make  a  decisive  blow.  On  October  7  Burgoyne  moved 
out  of  his  camp  with  1.500  picked  men,  with  the  intent  of  flanking 
the  American  left.  They  were  at  once  attacked  by  Morgan's  sharp- 
shooters, aided  by  the  New  England  "  regulars,"  and  completely 
routed.  Arnold,  nominally  without  a  command,  sat  watching  the 
fight  from  the  heights  until  he  could  no  longer  restrain  himself. 
Springing  upon  his  horse,  he  rode  quickly  to  the  scene  of  action, 
where  he  was  greeted  with  deafening  cheers  by  the  men  of  his  old 


25G 


T  II  E     U  N  I  T  E  D     STATES 


1777 

command.  Putting  himself  at  their  head,  he  charged  the  enemy 
and  drove  their  line  from  the  field.  Burgoyne  now  planned  to  re- 
treat, but  presently  discovered  that  he  was  practically  surrounded, 
that  his  supplies  were  cut  off,  and  that  escape  was  impossible.  In 
this  situation  he  asked  for  terms.  At  first  an  unconditional  sur- 
render was  demanded,  but  the  terms  were  rejected  by  Burgoyne, 


iconderoga 


STRUGGLE  FOR  THE  UPPER  HUDSON. 


and  better  ones  were  finally  granted.  The  British  army  was  al- 
lowed to  march  out  with  the  honors  of  war  and  stack  their  arms  at 
a  designated  place,  after  which  they  were  to  be  permitted  to  return 
to  England  upon  promise  not  to  take  up  arms  against  the  United 
States  again  during  the  existing  war.  Altogether  nearly  6,000 
men  were  surrendered,  besides  a  large  quantity  of  arms,  ammuni- 
tion and  stores.     The  terms  of  the  surrender,  be  it  said  to  the 


WAR    IN    MIDDLE    COLONIES  257 

1777 

discredit  of  Congress,  were  never  carried  out.  When  it  occurred 
to  that  body  that  the  return  of  Burgoyne's  army  to  England  would 
be  followed  by  the  sending  over  of  others  to  take  their  places, 
Congress  began  to  find  pretexts  for  the  evasion  of  its  duty.  It 
insisted  on  payment  for  the  subsistence  of  the  troops  since  the 
surrender,  and  yet  refused  to  accept  its  own  notes  in  extinguish- 
ment of  the  claim.  It  then  demanded  other  conditions  with  which 
Burgoyne  could  not  with  self-respect  comply.  Finally,  all  intention 
of  sending  them  home  was  abandoned,  and  they  were  accordingly 
removed  to  the  neighborhood  of  Charlottesville,  Virginia,  where 
they  remained  until  the  end  of  the  war.  Some  of  them  returned 
to  England  upon  the  conclusion  of  peace,  but  the  greater  number, 
especially  of  the  Germans,  preferred  to  remain  in  America,  and 
became  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

The  battle  of  Saratoga,  or  Bemis  Heights,  as  it  is  sometimes 
called,  is  usually  regarded  as  the  turning  point  of  the  Revolution. 
Up  to  that  time  the  success  of  the  American  cause  had  been  in 
doubt.  Now,  however,  the  hope  of  independence  seemed  assured, 
and  the  result  which  the  American  victory  accomplished  soon  set 
in  motion  a  procession  of  events  that  was  destined  to  lead  to  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  the  American  cause. 

IV 

BRANDYWINE,  GERMANTOWN,  AND  VALLEY  FORGE 

It  is  now  necessary  to  return  to  Morristown,  New  Jersey,  where 
we  left  Washington  after  the  battle  of  Princeton  in  January,  1777, 
and  to  follow  his  operations  during  the  following  year.  Having, 
by  his  recent  successes,  gained  the  unqualified  confidence  of  his 
countrymen,  he  was  now  given  by  Congress  a  virtual  dictatorship 
for  the  conduct  of  the  war.  He  was  vested  with  "  full,  ample, 
and  complete  powers  "  to  raise  sixteen  additional  battalions  of  in- 
fantry, three  thousand  light-horse,  three  regiments  of  artillery,  and 
a  corps  of  engineers ;  to  call  upon  the  States  for  militia ;  to  dismiss 
and  appoint  all  officers  below  the  rank  of  brigadier  general;  to 
impress,  at  a  fair  price,  all  provisions  and  other  supplies  necessary 
for  the  use  of  the  army;  and  to  arrest  and  send  to  the  courts  for 
trial  any  persons  charged  with  disaffection  to  the  American  cause. 
"  Such  an  expression  of  confidence,  unstintedly  and  unanimously 


258 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1777 


accorded,  during  the  closing  hours  of  the  very  darkest  season  in 
American  history,  will  remain  on  record  through  all  ages  as  a 
tribute  to  the  man,  and  not  to  his  fortune."  8 

Feeling    certain    that    Howe    would    remain    in    New    York 
throughout  the  winter,  and  leaving  him  unmolested,  Washington 


quietly  settled  down  for  the  winter  in  Morristown,  and  set  himself 
to  reorganizing  and  reenforcing  the  Continental  army,  and  the 
force  which  he  here  brought  together  followed  him  obediently  and 
devotedly  to  the  end.  With  the  approach  of  spring,  military  opera- 
tions were  renewed.  Instead  of  marching  up  the  line  of  the  Hud- 
son to  cooperate  with   Burgoyne,   as  the  ministry  had   intended, 


8  Trevelyan,  "The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  141. 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  259 

1777 

Howe  decided  to  march  across  New  Jersey  and  capture  Phila- 
delphia, the  rebel  capital.  Divining  his  purpose,  Washington,  with 
his  army  now  numbering  8,000  men,  threw  himself  across  Howe's 
line  of  march,  and,  by  a  campaign  of  remarkable  strategy,  in  which 
he  harassed  and  outwitted  the  enemy,  compelled  him  to  change  his 
plan  and  return  to  New  York.  Nevertheless,  the  British  general 
did  not  abandon  his  attempt  to  capture  Philadelphia,  as  he  thought 
that  its  possession  would  greatly  affect  the  final  result.  He  there- 
fore resolved  to  send  his  army  by  sea  and  approach  the  city  by 
way  of  the  Delaware.  Accordingly,  in  July,  he  embarked  at  New 
York  and  sailed  for  the  mouth  of  the  Delaware;  but  finding  ob- 
structions in  the  river,  he  sailed  around  the  peninsula  and  up 
Chesapeake  Bay,  landing  at  Elkton,  Maryland,  in  the  latter  part  of 
August,  with  the  intention  of  marching  his  army  overland  to 
Philadelphia,  some  fifty  miles  distant.  Upon  receiving  news  of 
Howe's  landing,  Washington  resolved  to  meet  him,  and,  if  possible, 
turn  him  back,  as  he  had  done  in  New  Jersey  earlier  in  the  spring. 
Planting  himself  at  Chad's  Ford  on  Brandywine  Creek,  about  mid- 
way between  Elkton  and  Philadelphia,  he  prepared  to  oppose  the  ad- 
vance of  the  British.  The  chances  were  all  against  Washington, 
as  his  entire  force  did  not  exceed  11,000  men,  as  against  18,000 
British  troops.  His  position,  however,  was  well  chosen,  and  he 
was  aided  by  able  subordinate  commanders,  among  them  Generals 
Greene  and  Anthony  Wayne.  Howe's  right  and  left  wings  were 
commanded  by  Knyphausen,  an  able  Hessian  soldier,  and  Corn- 
wallis,  respectively.  On  September  11,  just  a  week  before  the  fight 
at  Bemis  Heights,  the  two  armies  met,  and  the  battle  which  ensued 
resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  Americans,  their  loss  exceeding  1,000 
men,  or  nearly  one-tenth  of  the  number  engaged. 

The  way  to  Philadelphia  was  now  open,  although  Washington 
was  able  to  harass  and  detain  Howe's  army  with  a  view  to  pre- 
venting him  from  sending  aid  to  Burgoyne.  Establishing  his 
headquarters  at  Germantown,  near  by,  Howe  sent  Cornwallis  to 
take  possession  of  the  rebel  capital,  which  he  did  with  colors  flying 
and  bands  playing,  the  Congress  fleeing  first  to  Lancaster,  and 
later  to  York,  where  its  sessions  were  resumed  without  molestation. 
The  importance  of  the  capture  of  Philadelphia  was  greatly  over- 
estimated by  the  British.  The  town  possessed  no  strategic  value, 
it  was  not  a  military  post,  and  its  importance  as  an  administrative 
center  was  inconsiderable.     It  was,  indeed,  the  meeting-place  of  the 


260  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1777-1778 

Continental  Congress,  but  the  Congress  could  easily  retire  and  hold 
its  sessions  as  well  at  some  other  place.  The  loss  of  the  town, 
therefore,  had  no  perceptible  effect  upon  the  course  of  military 
operations. 

After  the  battle  of  the  Brandywine,  Washington  followed  the 
British  army  to  Germantown,  a  village  several  miles  to  the  north- 
west of  Philadelphia,  and  there,  on  October  4,  five  days  before  the 
final  engagement  at  Saratoga,  gave  them  battle.  His  plan  was  to 
advance  along  converging  lines  from  the  north  and  attack  the 
enemy  at  daybreak,  but  unfortunately  this  well-conceived  scheme 
was  spoiled  by  a  dense  fog  which  enveloped  the  village  just  at  the 
time  the  attack  was  to  begin.  In  the  confusion  which  followed  the 
beginning  of  the  battle,  a  division  of  Wayne's  men,  mistaken  for 
the  enemy,  were  fired  upon  by  a  brigade  of  American  troops  com- 
manded by  General  Stephen.  This  led  to  a  panic  among  the 
Americans,  and  caused  them  to  retreat,  leaving  the  enemy  in 
possession  of  the  field.  The  result,  therefore,  was  a  victory  for 
the  British,  although  their  losses  in  killed  and  wounded  were  almost 
as  large  as  those  of  the  Americans.  Freed  from  further  danger, 
Howe  now  gave  his  attention  to  the  opening  of  the  Delaware,  and 
after  a  month  of  effort  succeeded  in  reducing  Forts  Mercer  and 
Mifflin,  which  commanded  the  lower  part  of  the  river.  This  done, 
he  settled  down  to  spend  the  winter  of  1 777-1 778  in  the  American 
metropolis. 

After  the  defeat  at  Germantown,  Washington  withdrew  to 
Valley  Forge  on  the  Schuylkill,  some  twenty  miles  to  the  north- 
west of  Philadelphia,  where  he  went  into  winter  quarters.  The 
sufferings  of  his  men  during  that  terrible  winter  have  excited  not 
only  the  pity,  but  the  admiration,  of  all  students  of  American 
history.  For  days  the  American  troops  were  without  bread  or 
meat,  and  at  one  time  Washington  reported  that  nearly  3,000  were 
"  barefoot  and  otherwise  naked.''  When,  in  December,  they  took 
11  p  their  march  for  winter  quarters,  the  line  of  march  could  be 
traced  on  the  snow  by  the  blood  that  oozed  from  their  bare  frost- 
bitten feet.  As  is  so  often  the  case  in  war,  much  of  the  suffering 
was  due  to  the  mismanagement  of  the  commissary  and  quarter- 
master departments.  At  the  time  the  men  were  marching  bare- 
foot and  naked  to  their  quarters,  we  are  told  by  a  contemporary 
historian  of  the  Revolution  that  hogsheads  of  shoes,  stockings  and 
clothing  were  lying  at  different  places  on  the  roads  and   in   the 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  261 

1778 

woods,  rotting  for  want  of  teams  or  of  money  with  which  to 
pay  the  cost  of  transportation.  As  ?.  result,  not  infrequently  the 
poor  fellows  had  to  sit  up  all  night  by  the  fire  to  keep  from  freezing. 
Soon,  also,  the  rudely  constructed  huts  were  filled  to  overflowing 
with  the  sick ;  many  died,  and  at  one  time  barely  2,000  were  able 
to  take  the  field  had  the  exigencies  of  the  campaign  required  it. 
Much  of  the  responsibility  for  this  terrible  suffering  lay  at  the  door 
of  Congress.  Since  the  first  meeting  in  1774  it  had  steadily  de- 
clined in  character,  and  by  1778  it  was  far  from  being  the  able  body 
which  it  once  was.  Great  leaders  like  Washington,  Franklin,  Jef- 
ferson, Patrick  Henry,  and  Jay  were  no  longer  members,  and  in 
their  places  sat  men  of  third-rate  ability  and  character.  Instead 
of  giving  its  attention  to  the  welfare  of  the  soldiers  in  the  field, 
Congress  too  often  occupied  its  time  with  needless  meddling  and 
intriguing. 

It  was  just  at  this  time  that  the  "  Conway  Cabal  "  undertook 
to  secure  the  removal  of  Washington  from  the  command  of  the 
army  and  the  appointment  of  Gates  in  his  place.  Almost  from  the 
beginning  of  the  war  there  were  a  few  unscrupulous,  self-seeking 
individuals  like  Lee  and  Gates,  who  secretly  labored  in  and  out  of 
season  to  bring  about  Washington's  downfall,  and  who  never  lost 
an  opportunity  to  criticise  and  even  malign  him  for  not  doing  what 
obviously  he  was  unable  to  do  with  the  poor  resources  at  his  com- 
mand. Their  complaints  were  carried  to  Congress,  and,  unfor- 
tunately, there  were  some  members  of  that  body  who  were  ready 
to  lend  willing  ears  to  all  the  absurd  stories  about  Washington's 
incompetency.  The  head  of  the  present  plot  was  Thomas  Conway, 
an  Irish  officer  who  had  served  in  the  American  army  in  the 
battles  of  Brandywine  and  Germantown,  and  had  taken  offense 
at  Washington's  opposition  to  his  promotion.  Allied  with  him 
were  Thomas  Mifflin,  quartermaster-general;  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush, 
a  prominent  citizen  of  Philadelphia,  and  James  Lovell,  a  member 
of  Congress.  This  coterie  of  defamers  set  to  work  by  an  anony- 
mous correspondence  and  other  reprehensible  methods  to  convince 
Congress  and  the  country  of  Washington's  incapability,  compared 
his  failures  with  the  success  of  Gates  at  Saratoga,  and  asserted  that 
the  appointment  of  the  latter  hero  to  the  chief  command  would  be 
followed  by  a  series  of  magnificent  military  successes.  Just  as  the 
plot  reached  its  height  some  of  Gates's  secret  correspondence  fell 
into  the  hands  of  Washington,  and  was  published.     The  revelations 


262  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1778 

of  these  underhand  attempts  to  bring  about  his  overthrow  caused 
a  feeling  of  public  indignation  against  the  plotters,  and  the  cabal 
soon  collapsed  without  having  accomplished  its  nefarious  purpose. 
Henceforward  the  poweiful  influence  of  Washington  steadily  in- 
creased, and  he  came  to  occupy  a  higher  place  in  the  hearts  of  his 
countrymen  than  ever  before  —  a  place  from  which  no  amount  of 
defamation  and  censure  could  dethrone  him. 


V 

CHARLES   LEE   AND   THE   BATTLE   OF    MONMOUTH 

While  Washington's  hungry,  half-clad  troops  were  induring 
the  sufferings  of  Valley  Forge,  and  incidentally  being  thoroughly 
drilled  by  the  Baron  von  Steuben,  a  skilled  Prussian  soldier  in  the 
American  service,  Howe's  army  was  enjoying  a  comfortable  winter 
at  Philadelphia.  There  was  an  abundance  to  eat  and  drink  in 
this,  the  largest  of  American  cities;  many  loyalist  friends  were 
ready  to  minister  to  their  wants,  and  a  round  of  balls,  theaters  and 
parties  furnished  all  the  amusements  and  diversions  that  could  be 
desired.  Nevertheless,  Howe  had  derived  no  military  advantage 
from  the  possession  of  the  place;  further  occupation  was  not  only 
useless,  but  dangerous,  for  the  city  had  no  natural  defenses,  and 
a  French  fleet  was  then  approaching  America,  possibly  bound  for 
the  mouth  of  the  Delaware. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  British  Government  recalled 
Howe  and  appointed  Clinton,  with  instructions  to  evacuate  the  city 
and  transfer  his  army  to  New  York.  Accordingly,  on  June  18,  the 
British  forces  marched  out,  carrying  with  them  3,000  loyalists,  and 
the  Americans  shortly  afterwards  took  possession.  The  Congress 
which  had  during  the  British  occupation  held  its  sessions  first  at 
Lancaster  and  then  at  York,  now  returned  to  its  old  place  of  meet- 
ing and  resumed  its  sittings.  After  the  evacuation  the  British  army 
took  up  its  march  across  New  Jersey  for  New  York,  but  it  was  not 
to  be  an  unmolested  retreat.  Taking  courage  from  the  favorable 
outlook  now  presented  by  the  prospect  of  French  aid,  Washington 
resolved  to  pursue  the  retreating  enemy,  and,  if  possible,  annihilate 
it  before  it  could  reach  New  York.  Accordingly,  with  15,000  well- 
drilled  troops  —  thanks  to  Von  Steuben  —  he  set  out  in  hot  pursuit 
on  a  parallel  line  of  march,  and  on  June  2j  came  up  with  Clinton 


WAR    IN    MIDDLE    COLONIES  263 

1778 

near  Monmouth  Court  House.  Detaching  a  force  of  6,000  men 
under  Charles  Lee,  who  had  recently  been  exchanged  for  the  British 
General  Prescott,  and  restored  to  his  old  rank  as  senior  major 
general,  Washington  sent  him  with  peremptory  orders  to  turn  the 
British  left  wing  of  8,000  men  under  General  Cornwallis,  while 
he  was  to  follow  up  the  attack  with  the  main  army  and  complete 
the  discomfiture  of  the  enemy.  On  June  28,  a  torrid  Sunday  morn- 
ing, Lee  advanced  to  the  attack  with  every  prospect  of  success,  but 
soon  after  the  fight  began,  to  the  astonishment  of  the  British  and 
the  bewilderment  of  his  own  men,  Lee  ordered  a  retreat.  The 
young  Marquis  de  Lafayette,  to  whom  Washington  had  first  en- 
trusted the  command,  and  later  bestowed  it  upon  Lee,  was  filled 
with  suspicion  at  this  behavior,  and  sent  a  dispatch  to  Washington 
requesting  his  immediate  presence.  When  the  commander-in-chief 
appeared  on  the  scene  all  was  disorder  and  confusion.  Trembling 
in  his  saddle  and  white  with  anger  he  inquired  of  Lee :  "  What  is 
the  meaning  of  all  this?"  Severely  rebuking  him  for  disobeying 
explicit  orders,  Washington  wheeled  about  and  undertook  to  stop 
the  disorderly  route  and  retrieve  the  disaster  which  Lee's  conduct 
had  occasioned.  This  proved  a  difficult  task,  but  in  spite  of  an 
obstinate  resistance,  the  British  were  forced  back  along  the  ground 
over  which  Lee  had  retreated,  until  night  put  an  end  to  the  struggle. 
During  the  night  Clinton  withdrew,  leaving  the  Americans  in  pos- 
session of  the  field,  the  British  loss  being  somewhat  over  400;  that 
of  the  Americans  somewhat  smaller.  Shortly  afterward  the  Brit- 
ish loss  was  further  increased  by  the  desertion  of  2,000  Hessians, 
who  joined  the  American  cause. 

.So  far  as  military  results  were  concerned,  the  battle  of  Mon- 
mouth —  the  last  of  the  Revolution  to  be  fought  in  the  north  — 
was  indecisive;  but  the  moral  advantages,  however,  were  on  the 
side  of  the  Americans.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  extraordinary  be- 
havior of  Lee,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Americans  would 
have  won  a  decisive  victory.  During  the  course  of  the  battle 
Washington  ordered  him  to  the  rear,  after  which  Lee  addressed  an 
impudent  letter  to  the  commander-in-chief  demanding  an  apology. 
Washington's  reply  called  out  another  letter  so  full  of  impertinence 
from  a  subordinate  officer,  that  he  ordered  the  arrest  of  Lee  and 
his  trial  by  court-martial. 

After  a  lengthy  trial  Lee  was  found  guilty  of  disobedience  of 
orders,  of  misbehavior  on  the  field,  and  of  gross  disrespect  to  the 


264  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1778 

commander-in-chief,  but  was  let  off  with  the  light  punishment  of 
suspension  from  his  command  for  the  term  of  one  year.9  There 
were  many  who  felt  that  the  offense  warranted  a  far  more  serious 
punishment;  certainly  many  European  soldiers  have  been  shot  for 
acts  less  serious  in  character.  The  discovery  many  years  later  of 
certain  of  his  private  correspondence  seems  to  establish  what  was 
not  generally  believed  in  1778,  namely,  that  Lee  was  grossly  in- 
different if  not  actually  a  traitor  to  the  American  cause.  Before 
the  close  of  the  war  he  got  into  a  quarrel  with  Congress  and  was 
expelled  from  the  army.  Thereupon  he  retired  to  a  plantation  in 
the  Shenandoah  valley,  where  he  lived  surrounded  by  his  dogs, 
apart  from  the  world,  until  1782,  when  he  died  on  the  occasion  of 
a  visit  to  Philadelphia.  His  last  injunction  that  his  body  should 
not  be  buried  within  a  mile  of  any  church  was  disregarded,  and 
his  bones  to-day  repose  in  the  cemetery  of  Christ  Church,  Phila- 
delphia, with  those  of  some  of  America's  greatest  heroes.  Lee  was 
unfitted  by  temperament  and  character  for  the  position  to  which 
he  had  early  been  appointed  by  Congress.  His  head  was  soon 
turned  by  early  successes,  and  at  the  time  of  his  insubordination, 
says  an  English  historian  of  the  American  Revolution,  was  kept  in 
a  state  of  effervescence  by  a  great  deal  of  extraordinary,  and,  in 
some  cases,  of  rather  interested  flattery.  Of  inordinate  vanity,  he 
possessed  an  insufferable  disdain  of  American  soldiers,  sneered  at 
his  comrades  of  rank,  lectured  them  constantly  about  the  arts  of 
strategy  and  fortification,  and  inunclated  America  with  his  im- 
perious advice  and  his  unsparing  and  most  offensive  criticism.10 
Unlike  the  career  of  Benedict  Arnold,  says  Fiske.  a  career  into 
which  there  enters  the  element  of  avarice  and  pity,  the  whole 
story  of  Charles  Lee,  from  first  to  last,  is  little  more  than  a  vulgar 
melodrama. 

Shortly  after  the  battle  of  Monmouth  the  two  opposing  armies 
resumed  their  march  for  New  York,  Washington  going  to  White 
Plains,  Clinton  to  the  city  of  New  York,  and  here  they  remained 
for  the  next  three  years  facing  each  other,  while  the  operations  of 
the  war  were  being  conducted  in  the  south. 

8  Fiske,   "  American   Revolution,"  vol.  ii.  p.  67. 
10  Trevelyan,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  part  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  53. 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  265 

1778 

VI 

THE  FRENCH  ALLIANCE 

Meantime  the  American  cause  had  been  strengthened  by  a 
notable  diplomatic  achievement.  As  early  as  November,  1775,  the 
Continental  Congress  had  appointed  a  "  Secret  Committee  of 
Correspondence,"  of  which  Benjamin  Franklin  and  John  Jay  were 
members,  to  correspond  with  the  friends  of  the  colonies  in  Europe, 
and  as  has  already  been  said,  Silas  Deane  was  sent  to  France  in  the 
spring  of  1776  with  instructions  to  appear  in  the  character  of  a 
secret  agent,  to  seek  an  audience  with  Vergennes,  the  French  min- 
ister of  foreign  affairs,  and  ascertain  whether,  if  the  colonies  should 
declare  their  independence  of  Great  Britain,  France  would  acknowl- 
edge that  independnce  and  enter  into  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  them. 
In  1777  the  name  of  this  committee  was  changed  to  the  "Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs."  u 

Deane  was  also  instructed  to  solicit  aid  for  the  Americans  in 
the  shape  of  arms,  ammunition,  clothing  and  other  supplies.  He 
reached  Paris  in  June,  1776,  and  was  received  in  audience  by  Ver- 
gennes, who,  while  declining  to  commit  himself  on  the  question  of 
independence,  promised  to  furnish  a  quantity  of  supplies,  and  early 
in  1777  several  vessels  laden  with  stores,  cannon  and  small  arms 
were  actually  sent  to  America  for  the  use  of  the  army.  Deane 
succeeded  in  enlisting  in  the  American  cause  a  rather  romantic 
character  of  humble  origin,  named  Beaumarchais,  then  at  the  height 
of  his  fame  as  a  dramatist,  and  remembered  chiefly  as  the  author  of 
those  charming  plays,  "  Figaro "  and  "  The  Barber  of  Seville." 
Beaumarchais  became  the  head  of  a  fictitious  mercantile  firm, 
through  which  the  French  Government  secretly  aided  the  Ameri- 
cans, for  it  was  necessary  to  conceal  every  movement  from  the 
British  ambassador,  who  kept  a  sharp  lookout  to  see  that  French 
neutrality  was  not  violated.  What  France  had  to  give  the  Ameri- 
cans, therefore,  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  "  Hortalez  &  Company," 
and  through  it  transmitted  to  America.  It  is.  of  course,  a  breach 
of  neutrality  for  a  neutral  government  to  give  aid  to  either  belliger- 
ent in  war,  but  it  is  a  legitimate  transaction  for  private  individuals 
to  sell  supplies  to  whoever  will  buy  in  the  regular  course  of  trade. 

11  For  its  history  see  "The  Department  of  State,  Its  History  and  Functions  " 
(Government  Printing  Office,  1893). 


2.66  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1778 

Through  this  roundabout  method  the  French  Government  was  able 
to  offer  substantial  aid  to  the  Americans,  and  at  the  same  time  con- 
ceal the  fact  that  it  was  violating  its  neutral  duties.  Considerable 
sums  of  money  were  also  transmitted  to  the  colonies  through  this 
channel,  Deane  agreeing  to  repay  with  cargoes  of  tobacco  and  other 
products  sent  over  by  Congress.  Unfortunately,  when  the  Con- 
gress came  to  settle  accounts  with  Beaumarchais,  a  dispute  arose  as 
to  how  much  of  the  amount  was  a  gift  from  the  king  and  how 
much  a  loan  from  Beaumarchais.  Beaumarchais  claimed  that  the 
the  amount  advanced  through  him  was  a  loan  and  not  a  gratuity; 
but  this  was  denied  by  Congress,  and  he  was  unable  to  get  a  settle- 
ment and  died  in  1779  with  the  claims  still  pending.  His  heirs, 
supported  by  the  French  Government,  pressed  their  claim  against 
the  United  States  for  sixty  years,  until  1831,  when  a  small  appro- 
priation v/as  made  by  Congress  in  final  settlement  of  the  long-stand- 
ing account.12 

After  the  Declaration  of  Independence  Congress  adopted  a 
more  systematic  policy  of  foreign  intercourse,  and  in  September, 
1776,  drew  up  a  "  plan  "  of  treaties  to  be  proposed  to  foreign  pow- 
ers, and  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Arthur  Lee  were  commissioned  as 
ministers  to  France  to  lay  it  before  Louis  XVI..13  Franklin 
reached  Paris  in  December,  where  he  was  joined  by  Deane  and 
Lee,  and  on  the  23d  they  addressed  a  note  to  Count  Vergennes, 
proposing  a  commercial  treaty.14  Franklin  was  at  the  time  the 
best-known  American  abroad,  and  his  popularity  in  France,  where 
he  had  temporarily  resided  before  the  Revolution,  was  especially 
great.  His  philosophic  and  scientific  writings,  his  republican  sim- 
plicity, his  quaint  dress  and  good  humor,  made  him  the  idol  of 
the  people  of  the  gay  and  learned  French  capital,  and  the  testi- 
monials of  esteem  which  he  received  from  their  hands  were  scarcely 
ever  equalled  in  the  history  of  diplomacy.  Before  he  left  Paris  in 
1774  he  had  an  interview  with  Vergennes,  who  had  pointedly  re- 
minded him  that  France  had  contributed  to  the  independence  of 
the  Netherlands,  and  that  she  might  aid  the  American  colonies  in  a 
similar  manner.     Franklin  now  called  upon  him  for  the  fulfillment 

12 James  B.  Angell,  "Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution,''  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and 
Crit.  Hist.,"  vol.  vii.  chap  vii. ;  see  also  Foster,  "American  Diplomacy,"  p.  16. 

13  See  Snow,  "  Topics  in  American  Diplomacy,"  pp.   12-24. 

14 John  Bassett  Moore,  "The  Beginnings  of  American  Diplomacy,"  Harper's 
Magazine,  vol.  cviii.  p.  500. 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  267 

1778 

of  his  promise.  But  the  winter  of  1776-1777  was  an  inauspicious 
time  to  secure  diplomatic  concessions.  The  American  cause  was  at 
a  low  ebb,  the  authority  of  Congress  was  disregarded,  the  Ameri- 
can forces  were  depleted,  and  a  series  of  disasters  had  crowned  the 
operations  of  the  Continental  army.  The  proposition  of  the  Amer- 
ican commissioners  was,  therefore,  rejected,  and  they  were  com- 
pelled to  wait  for  victories  in  the  field  to  move  the  French 
Government  to  action.  For  a  year,  therefore,  nothing  was  accom- 
plished. 

Early  in  December,  1777,  news  of  the  American  victory  at 
Saratoga  reached  Paris  and  at  once  gave  a  new  turn  to  the  negotia- 
tions. The  Americans  assumed  a  bolder  front  and  proposed  a 
treaty  of  alliance.  Almost  immediately  they  were  informed  that 
the  king  had  decided  to  recognize  their  independence,  and  to  enter 
into  a  treaty  with  them,  his  decision  being  evidently  hastened  by 
the  report  that  the  British  authorities  were  negotiating  with  them 
with  a  view  to  the  termination  of  the  war.  The  motive  of  the 
French  king  was,  of  course,  not  so  much  the  result  of  personal 
solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the  colonists,  as  a  desire  to  humiliate 
the  old  enemy  of  France,  who  had  despoiled  her  of  her  American 
empire.  Nevertheless,  the  aid  was  gladly  accepted,  and  the  com- 
missioners did  not  trouble  themselves  to  inquire  into  the  nature  of 
the  motive  back  of  the  deed.  The  negotiations  rapidly  proceeded, 
and  on  February  6,  1778,  a  treaty  of  alliance  and  one  of  commerce 
were  signed  at  Versailles  by  Conrad  A.  Gerard  on  the  part  of  the 
king,  and  by  Franklin,  Deane  and  Lee  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States. 

By  the  treaty  of  alliance  France  recognized  the  independence 
of  the  colonies  and  declared  the  object  of  the  alliance  to  be  the 
maintenance  of  that  independence;  she  stipulated  that  if  Great  Bri- 
tain should  declare  war  against  France,  which  she  soon  did,  the 
two  contracting  parties  should  make  common  cause  and  aid  each 
other  with  their  good  offices,  their  counsels  and  their  forces;  that 
they  would  not  lay  down  their  arms  until  the  independence  of  the 
United  States  should  be  acknowledged,  and  that  neither  would 
conclude  peace  without  the  formal  consent  of  the  other.  Moreover, 
the  treaty  stipulated  for  a  division  of  probable  conquests  in  America, 
and  contained  a  guarantee  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  the 
existing  French  possessions  in  America  and  a  similar  guarantee 
upon  the  part  of  France  of  any  dominion  which  the  United  States 


268  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1778 

might  obtain  by  conquest  from  Great  Britain  in  America.15  The 
formation  of  the  alliance  with  France  was  by  all  odds  the  most 
important  diplomatic  triumph  of  the  Revolution.  It  secured  the 
aid  of  a  powerful  European  government  at  a  time  when  the  out- 
look for  American  success  was  anything  but  bright,  and  insured  the 
ultimate  independence  of  the  American  nation.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  the  colonies  would  have  succeeded  without  French 
aid,  and  the  time  eventually  came  when  the  alliance  was  repudiated 
by  act  of  Congress.  It  was  the  only  alliance  ever  entered  into  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  a  foreign  government,  and  the  em- 
barrassment to  which  it  subsequently  gave  rise  was  the  foundation 
of  the  American  policy  laid  down  by  Washington,  that  the  United 
States  should  enter  into  no  entangling  alliances.16 

No  other  treaties  were  concluded  with  European  nations  before 
the  surrender  of  Cornwallis  at  Yorktown,  although  commissioners 
were  sent  to  various  European  capitals  to  negotiate  for  conces- 
sions similar  to  those  secured  from  France.  Henry  Laurens  of 
South  Carolina  was  appointed  minister  to  the  Netherlands  in  1779, 
but  was  captured  off  the  coasts  of  Newfoundland  by  the  British, 
and  imprisoned  in  the  Tower  of  London,  while  his  papers,  con- 
taining the  plan  of  a  treaty  with  the  Netherlands,  which  he  had 
vainly  tried  to  sink  in  the  Atlantic,  were  confiscated.  Arthur  Lee 
was  sent  to  Berlin  to  negotiate  with  Frederick  the  Great,  who  re- 
fused to  enter  into  a  treaty  with  the  United  States,  but  showed  his 
friendliness  to  the  Americans  by  prohibiting  several  regiments  of 
Hessians  from  passing  through  his  territories  with  a  view  to  join- 
ing the  British  army  in  America.  An  incident  of  Lee's  residence  at 
Berlin  which  illustrates  the  unscrupulous  methods  of  diplomacy 
then  practiced,  was  the  stealing  of  his  papers  by  the  British  minister, 
whose  suspicions  had  been  aroused  by  Lee's  activity  at  the  Prussian 
capital.17  William  Lee,  Francis  Dana,  and  Ralph  Izard  were 
sent  to  Austria,  Russia  and  Tuscany,  respectively,  but  were  not 
received.  John  Jay  and  William  Carmichael  were  dispatched  to 
Madrid  to  secure  the  aid  of  Spain,  but  they  had  no  success,  al- 
though the  King  of  France  proposed  that  his  Catholic  brother 
should  join  him  in  the  alliance  with  America,  and  although  Spain 

15  Snow,  "Topics  in   American  Diplomacy,"  pp.  32-35. 
10  Foster,  "A  Century  of  Diplomacy,"  p.  31. 

17  Moore,   "  Beginnings    of  American   Diplomacy,"    Harper's  Magazine,  vol. 
cviii.  pp.  503-505- 


WAR     IN     MIDDLE     COLONIES  269 

1778 

ultimately  went  to  war  with  Great  Britain  as  the  ally  of  France. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  war  the  Spanish  Government  secretly  ad- 
vanced a  million  livres  to  the  American  cause  through  the  fictitious 
house  of  Hortalez  &  Company,  but  further  than  that  it  con- 
tributed little  to  American  independence.18 

The  news  of  the  French  alliance  caused  general  rejoicing  in 
America,  and  greatly  raised  the  hopes  of  the  struggling  patriots. 
A  powerful  French  fleet  was  soon  on  its  way  to  America,  and 
presently  a  number  of  French  engineers  and  higher  officers  arrived 
to  contribute  their  services  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  The 
most  distinguished  of  all  the  foreigners  who  came  was  the  young 
Marquis  de  Lafayette,  who  fitted  out  a  vessel  at  his  own  expense, 
offered  his  services  to  Congress,  and  was  made  a  major  general  in 
the  Continental  army.  His  services  to  America  were  inestimable, 
and  no  man  in  the  army  came  to  enjoy  the  confidence  of  Washing- 
ton to  the  same  extent  that  he  did.  Others  who  came  were  the 
Baron  de  Kalb,  an  able  officer,  who  rose  to  the  rank  of  major 
general  and  gave  his  life  for  the  American  cause;  Kosciusko,  a 
Polish  patriot,  whose  services  as  an  engineer  were  of  great  value 
to  Washington;  Count  Pulaski,  also  a  Pole,  who  was  fated  to  fall 
at  Savannah;  and  Baron  von  Steuben,  a  German,  whose  services 
in  the  army  as  a  drillmaster  have  already  been  referred  to.  While 
rendering  valuable  service  to  the  American  cause,  the  importunities 
of  many  of  the  foreigners  for  office  was  a  source  of  constant  em- 
barrassment to  Washington.  Irritated  on  one  occasion  at  the  con- 
duct of  Steuben,  he  declared :  "  Though  I  think  the  Baron  an 
excellent  officer,  I  do  most  devoutly  wish  that  we  had  not  a  single 
foreigner  among  us  except  the  Marquis  de  Lafayette,  who  acts 
upon  very  different  principles  from  those  which  govern  the  rest." 

The  conclusion  of  the  French  treaty  was  soon  known  in 
England  in  spite  of  all  efforts  to  keep  it  a  secret,  and  the  govern- 
ment at  once  declared  war  on  France  for  what  in  international  law 
was  an  act  of  unwarranted  intervention  in  British  affairs.  Feeling 
certain  that  if  the  war  continued  the  colonies  would  be  lost,  the 
ministry,  in  a  last  effort  to  conciliate  them,  repealed  the  Townshend 
Act  and  sent  three  commissioners  to  America  to  propose  terms  of 

18  By  a  lax  enforcement  of  their  neutral  obligations  the  Spanish  authorities 
at  New  Orleans  permitted  both  men  and  rnpplies  to  pass  up  the  Mississippi,  and 
the  brilliant  campaign  of  Galvez  on  the  Gulf  contributed  to  weaken  the  common 
enemy. 


270  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1778 

reconciliation.  But  it  was  too  late,  and  Congress  refused  upon 
their  arrival  to  appoint  commissioners  to  confer  with  them.  The 
Rockingham  Whigs  now  proposed  to  end  the  war  and  abandon  the 
colonies  without  a  further  struggle.  At  this  juncture  the  dying 
Chatham  appeared  for  the  last  time  in  the  House  of  Lords  to 
protest  against  the  voluntary  surrender  of  the  English  possessions 
in  America.  Swathed  in  flannels  and  leaning  on  the  arm  of  that 
younger  son  who  was  destined  in  a  few  years  to  rival  his  fame, 
with  sunken  eyes  and  ghastly  face,  he  hobbled  into  the  chamber 
and  entered  his  last  plea  in  a  voice  barely  audible  in  the  almost 
breathless  silence  of  the  House,  saying :  "  My  lords,  I  rejoice  that 
the  grave  has  not  closed  over  me;  that  I  am  still  alive  to  lift  up 
my  voice  against  the  dismemberment  of  this  ancient  and  noble 
monarchy."  19  While  trying  to  speak  a  second  time,  he  fell  into 
a  swoon  and  died  four  days  later,  being  spared  the  cruel  humiliation 
of  witnessing  the  disruption  of  the  empire  with  whose  greatness 
his  name  of  all  men'  was  most  inseparably  associated.  But  his  wish 
that  the  colonies  should  not  be  voluntarily  surrendered  was  re- 
spected, and  so  the  war  continued  for  four  years  longer. 

19  Lecky,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  p.  354. 


Chapter  XII 


THE   WAR   IN   THE    SOUTHERN    COLONIES 
1778-1782 


THE  GEORGIA  CAMPAIGN 

AFTER  the  disastrous  failure  of  the  attempt  to  gain  a 
foothold  in  the  Carolinas  in  the  spring  of  1776,  the  British 
desisted  in  that  quarter,  and  for  three  years  turned  their 
attention  entirely  to  the  conquest  of  the  eastern  and  middle  colonies. 
After  four  years  of  war  the  British  forces  had  overrun  a  large 
part  of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  had  destroyed  a 
vast  amount  of  property  at  an  enormous  sacrifice  of  their  own 
resources,  but  outside  of  the  city  of  New  York  still  held  no  place  of 
importance.1 

In  despair  the  ministry  again  determined  to  strike  at  the 
weaker  and  less  populous  section  of  the  country.  In  the  Carolinas 
and  Georgia,  the  character  of  the  country  and  the  sparseness  of 
population  would  make  organized  resistance  more  difficult;  the 
resources  of  these  colonies  were  inferior  to  those  of  the  north  and 
east,  and,  besides,  it  was  believed  there  were  large  numbers  of 
loyalists  ready  to  join  the  British  armies  as  soon  as  they  should 
make  their  appearance  in  the  south. 

In  the  late  autumn  of  1778  a  force  of  3,500  British  regulars 
from  New  York  landed  near  Savannah,  quickly  overcame  the  feeble 
resistance  which  the  Americans  were  able  to  offer,  and  in  December 
took  the  town,  together  with  500  prisoners  and  a  quantity  of  ar- 
tillery and  stores.     Most  of  the  inhabitants  submitted,  others  fled 

1  British  power  in  the  Illinois  country  was  effectually  broken  by  a  frontiers- 
man, George  Rogers  Clark,  who,  with  a  commission  from  Governor  Patrick 
Henry  of  Virginia,  captured  Kaskaskia  in  1778  and  Vincennes  in  1779,  thus 
laying  the  basis  of  the  future  claim  of  Virginia  to  the  Northwest  Territory. 

271 


272  T  PI  E     UNITED     STATES 

1778-1779 

to  South  Carolina  or  to  the  hill  country  of  the  interior.  A  few- 
days  later  another  British  force  under  Colonel  Campbell  captured 
Augusta,  and  shortly  afterwards  various  other  places  of  less  im- 
portance in  Georgia  suffered  the  same  fate.  Thus  by  a  short,  quick 
blow  Georgia  had  been  completely  reduced  to  subjection  to  the 
Crown. 

Meantime,  General  Robert  Howe,  commander  of  the  Ameri- 
can forces  in  this  quarter,  was  superseded  by  General  Benjamin 
Lincoln,  who  had  served  in  the  New  York  campaign,  and  who, 
though  a  brave  man,  was  slow  and  without  military  capacity.  Lin- 
coln assumed  command  in  December,  and  sent  a  detachment  of 
1,500  men  to  recapture  Augusta,  which  it  easily  did;  but  the  army 
was  afterwards  defeated  (March,  1779)  and  routed  by  the  British 
with  great  loss  at  Briar  Creek,  all  of  the  Americans  being  captured 
except  some  450,  who  succeeded  in  swimming  the  river. 

The  British  General  Prevost  then  crossed  the  Savannah  River 
into  South  Carolina,  and  with  3,000  troops,  together  with  a  band 
of  Indian  allies,  devastated  the  adjacent  country  somewhat  as 
General  Sherman  did  eighty-five  years  later  in  the  great  Civil  War. 
Continuing  his  campaign  of  devastation  until  Charleston  was 
reached,  he  demanded  the  surrender  of  the  town;  but  at  this  junc- 
ture he  was  confronted  by  Lincoln,  who  drove  him  back  into 
Georgia.  Early  in  September  the  French  fleet  under  the  command 
of  D'Estaing  arrived  from  the  West  Indies,  where  it  had  been 
cruising,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  month  laid  siege  to 
Savannah  in  the  hope  of  recapturing  it  from  the  British.  Aided 
by  Lincoln's  artillery  from  the  land  side,  he  bombarded  the  town 
at  intervals  for  three  weeks,  but  being  unable  to  force  a  surrender 
decided  to  make  an  attempt  to  take  it  by  storm.  Accordingly,  on 
October  9,  a  desperate  assault  was  made  by  the  combined  French 
and  American  forces,  but  the  assailants  were  driven  back  with  a 
loss  of  some  eight  hundred  men.  Among  the  killed  was  the  gallant 
Pulaski,  whose  memory  is  worthily  perpetuated  by  a  handsome 
monument  in  the  picturesque  old  town  for  the  defense  of  which 
he  gave  his  life.  After  the  defeat  D'Estaing  sailed  away  and 
never  again  came  to  the  aid  of  the  Americans  with  his  fleet,  and 
Lincoln  withdrew  disheartened  to  Charleston. 

The  outlook  was  now  very  gloomy  for  the  unaided  Ameri- 
cans. Without  men  and  money  South  Carolina  seemed  helpless. 
The   French  had  gone  and   thousands  of  the  inhabitants,    seeing 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       273 

1779-1780 

themselves  exposed  to  war,  came  forward  and  declared  their  al- 
legiance to  the  Crown.  Following  D'Estaing's  withdrawal  from 
southern  waters,  a  British  fleet  from  New  York,  bearing  8,000  men 
under  the  command  of  Sir  Henry  Clinton  and  Lord  Cornwallis,  the 
same  who  had  failed  to  effect  a  landing  in  the  south  in  1776, 
arrived  at  Savannah,  and  having  received  reinforcements  of  three 
thousand  men  proceeded  overland  to  Charleston,  which  was  their 
main  objective  point.  This  was  the  largest  town  in  the  south,  and 
the  third  largest  in  America.  For  its  defense  General  Lincoln  had 
gathered  a  small  force  which,  in  view  of  the  additional  reinforce- 
ments which  the  British  received  from  New  York,  proved  wholly 
insufficient  for  an  effective  defense.  Slowly  Clinton  invested  the 
city  on  the  land  side  while  the  British  fleet  menaced  it  from  the 
sea.  Thus  surrounded  it  seemed  useless  to  offer  further  resistance, 
and  on  May  12,  1780,  Lincoln  surrendered  the  place,  together  with 
his  whole  army  and  a  vast  quantity  of  supplies.  The  fall  of 
Charleston  was  a  severe  blow  to  the  American  cause.2  Besides  the 
loss  of  an  entire  army  the  way  was  opened  to  British  control  of 
South  Carolina. 

After  the  surrender  of  Charleston,  Clinton  with  the  larger 
part  of  his  army  returned  to  New  York,  leaving  Cornwallis  with 
5,000  men  to  continue  the  task  of  subjugation  in  the  South.  The 
British  forces  soon  overran  the  State,  and  like  Georgia,  it  now  lay 
at  the  feet  of  the  king.  Three  weeks  after  the  fall  of  Charleston 
Sir  Henry  Clinton  wrote  to  the  ministry,  "  I  may  venture  to 
assert  that  there  are  few  men  in  South  Carolina  who  are  not  either 
our  prisoners  or  in  arms  with  us."  At  this  time  the  Americans  were 
able  to  offer  but  little  organized  resistance,  although  irregular  bands 
of  patriot  volunteers  greatly  harassed  and  annoyed  the  British,  and 
on  several  occasions  inflicted  heavy  losses  on  their  advancing  col- 
umns. Suddenly  descending  from  the  mountains  or  emerging  from 
the  swamps,  they  swooped  down  upon  the  enemy,  threw  their  ranks 
into  confusion,  captured  their  wagon  trains,  released  their  prisoners 
and  frequently  engaged  them  in  hand-to-hand  contests  and  then 
disappeared  from  sight  as  suddenly  as  they  had  appeared.  Some 
of  these  partisan  bands  were  commanded  by  daring  and  resourceful 
leaders  whose  services  were  such  as  to  entitle  them  to  high  rank 
as  leaders  of  the  Revolution.  The  most  prominent  of  them  were 
Francis  Marion,  Thomas  Sumter  and  Andrew  Pickens.  Marion, 
2  Sloane,  "  The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  316. 


«74  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1780 

called  by  the  British  half  in  fear,  half  in  hatred,  the  "  Swamp  Fox," 
was  a  dashing  but  kind-hearted  man  of  Huguenot  descent,  whose 
exploits  read  like  a  mediaeval  romance.  He  had  served  in  the 
Old  French  war  and  had  lately  been  wounded  at  Savannah. 
Hardly  second  to  Marion  as  a  daring  commander  was  Sumter,  like- 
wise a  soldier  in  the  Old  French  war,  who,  too,  had  recently  been 
turned  out  of  doors  by  the  British,  and  his  house  burned.  After 
the  formation  of  the  Constitution  he  became  a  United  States  Sena- 
tor, and  lived  to  the  great  age  of  ninety-eight  years,  dying  in  1832. 
During  the  summer  of  1780  this  method  of  warfare  was  kept  up 
in  South  Carolina,  and  British  detachments  were  routed  at  several 
points,  notably  at  "  Ninety-Six  "  and  Hanging  Rock. 

In  the  meantime  some  2,000  troops  under  De  Kalb  had  been 
dispatched  by  Washington  to  South  Carolina,  and  they  arrived  in 
the  early  summer.  General  Gates,  who  ever  since  the  battle  of 
Saratoga  had  been  held  up  as  a  military  hero  hardly  second  to 
Washington,  was  appointed  to  the  chief  command  of  the  American 
forces  in  the  south,  and  preparations  for  an  energetic  campaign 
were  entered  upon.  He  arrived  in  July  and  proceeded  at  once  to 
march  upon  Camden  in  the  hope  of  taking  it  before  Cornwallis 
could  go  to  its  relief. 

Through  injudicious  choice  of  a  route  and  lack  of  promptness 
in  movement,  Gates  allowed  Cornwallis  to  effect  a  junction  with 
Rawdon's  force  at  Camden,  and  thus  lost  the  golden  opportunity  of 
capturing  the  latter.  While  endeavoring  to  take  each  other  by  sur- 
prise, the  two  armies  suddenly  found  themselves  face  to  face  before 
daybreak  on  the  morning  of  August  16,  and  soon  after  dawn  the 
fight  began.  After  holding  their  ground  stubbornly  and  success- 
fully, the  untrained,  undisciplined  militia,  outnumbered  and  out- 
flanked, gallantly  rallying  twice  in  the  midst  of  their  enemies,  finally 
threw  away  their  arms  and  fled,  panic-stricken  and  pursued  by 
the  British,  who  cut  down  eight  hundred  of  them  on  the  field. 
Gates  was  caught  in  the  struggling  mob  and  borne  from  the  field. 
Making  no  effort  to  rally  his  men,  he  continued  his  flight  for 
three  and  a  half  days  until  he  had  reached  Hillsborough.  North 
Carolina,  some  two  hundred  miles  distant.  Here  the  North  Caro- 
lina legislature  was  in  session,  and  Gates  doubtless  felt  relieved,  for 
he  always  seemed  to  be  more  at  home  with  Congress  and  legisla- 
tures than  with  armies. 

His  northern   laurels   had   indeed,   as   a   critical   observer  re- 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        275 

1780 

marked,  been  changed  to  southern  willows.  Never  had  an  Ameri- 
can army  suffered  such  a  disastrous  defeat;  it  was  utterly  broken 
and  dispersed.  Not  less  than  one  thousand  of  Gates's  men  were 
killed,  the  loss  of  some  of  the  regiments  being  severe,  while  another 
thousand  were  taken  prisoners,  and  a  large  quantity  of  artillery 
and  small  arms  were  captured.  De  Kalb,  after  having  been 
wounded  eleven  times,  died  a  prisoner  in  the  hands  of  the  British. 
The  British  loss  was  about  four  hundred  men  —  a  severe  loss  to 
an  army  no  larger  than  Cornwallis's.  The  battle  of  Camden  vir- 
tually ended  Gates's  career ;  his  failure  was  not  due  to  cowardice  or 
lack  of  patriotism,  but  rather  to  hesitation  at  the  critical  moment 
and  the  weakening  of  his  army  on  the  eve  of  battle  by  the  detach- 
ment of  four  hundred  of  his  ablest  troops  for  service  under  Sum- 
ter; 3  in  short,  he  failed  on  account  of  bad  generalship.4 

II 

TREASON  OF  BENEDICT  ARNOLD 

To  the  gloom  of  despondency  caused  by  the  ignominious  rout 
of  the  American  army  at  Camden  was  now  to  be  added  the  treason 
of  one  of  the  most  gallant  of  the  American  commanders,  General 
Benedict  Arnold.  Arnold's  expedition  to  Quebec  in  the  early  part 
of  the  war,  and  the  sufferings  which  he  endured  for  the  American 
cause,  had  greatly  endeared  him  to  General  Washington,  although 
we  know  now  that  he  possessed  neither  moral  courage  nor  con- 
viction. While  suffering  from  wounds,  he  was  placed  in  command 
of  Philadelphia  —  after  its  evacuation  by  the  British  in  1778,  and 
while  occupying  this  post  he  became  engaged  to  an  attractive  and 
prominent  lady  of  Tory  family  Miss  Margaret  Shippen,  and  it 
was  said  that  he  moved  altogether  too  much  in  Tory  social  circles 
for  the  good  of  the  American  cause.  Falling  into  habits  of  ex- 
travagance, he  soon  began  to  gamble  and  to  engage  in  reckless 
speculations  to  keep  up  his  style  of  living.  It  was  not  long,  there- 
fore, until  charges  were  preferred  against  him  for  fraudulent  trans- 
actions, abuse  of  official  power,  and  other  acts  of  misconduct. 

Stung  by  the  accusations,  the  high-spirited  Arnold  demanded 
an  investigation,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  by  Congress  to 

3  Fiske,  "  The  American  Revolution,"  vol.  ii.  p.  194. 

4  Sloane,  ''The  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  318. 


276  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1780 

examine  into  the  truth  of  the  charges.  After  diligent  inquiry  the 
committee  virtually  acquitted  him.  Instead  of  accepting  the  report, 
however,  Congress  referred  the  case  to  a  court-martial  in  April, 
1779,  new  testimony  having  in  the  meantime  been  adduced.  In 
January,  1780.  the  court-martial  completed  its  trial  and  acquitted 
Arnold  of  all  the  serious  charges  preferred  against  him,  but  directed 
Washington  to  reprimand  him  for  imprudence  in  using  army 
wagons  for  private  purposes  and  for  improperly  granting  a  pass. 
This  disagreeable  task  General  Washington  performed  as  gently  as 
his  sense  of  duty  and  dignity  would  permit.  Added  to  this  griev- 
ance, Arnold  was  irritated  by  the  action  of  Congress  in  passing  him 
over  in  the  matter  of  promotions,  five  junior  major  generals  being 
appointed  above  him.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  this  particular 
Arnold  was  wrongfully  treated  by  Congress,  and  no  satisfactory 
reason  has  ever  been  given  for  its  extraordinary  action.  His  serv- 
ices had  been  marked  by  courage  and  gallantry,  as  well  as  a  spirit 
of  self-sacrifice  and  devotion  to  the  American  cause.  Nevertheless, 
he  was  ignored  by  Congress  in  the  distribution  of  rewards,  and  un- 
able to  control  his  sensitive,  high-strung  nature,  and  burning  with 
indignation,  he  resolved  to  wreak  vengeance  upon  Congress  by 
betraying  the  American  cause  to  the  enemy.  Accordingly,  under 
the  guise  of  commercial  correspondence,  he  opened  communications 
with  General  Clinton,  and  in  the  meantime  requested  from  Wash- 
ington, and  easily  secured,  the  command  of  the  important  post  of 
West  Point,  which  had  recently  been  elaborately  and  strongly  forti- 
fied, and  which  controlled  the  Hudson. 

On  the  night  of  September  21,  1780,  in  pursuance  of  a  pre- 
vious arrangement,  he  held  an  interview  in  a  dense  thicket  near  the 
bank  of  the  Hudson  with  Major  John  Andre,  an  attractive  young 
Anglo-Frenchman  of  fine  accomplishments  and  an  adjutant  general 
in  the  British  service.  Andre  had  been  taken  up  the  river  by  the 
British  sloop  of  war  Vulture,  and  was  carried  ashore  in  a  boat 
rowed  by  three  men  who  were  entirely  ignorant  of  what  was  going 
on.  At  this  midnight  interview  it  was  arranged  that  Arnold  should 
deliver  up  to  the  British,  West  Point  with  its  three  thousand  men 
in  consideration  of  the  payment  to  him  of  six  thousand  pounds 
sterling,  and  the  promise  of  a  command  in  the  British  army. 
Andre  not  having  returned  at  the  approach  of  dawn,  the  Vulture 
was  compelled  to  drop  down  the  river  to  escape  the  fire  of  the  bat- 
teries on  land.     In  this  situation  Andre  decided  to  attempt  to  make 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       277 

1780 

his  way  back  to  New  York  by  land,  and  accordingly  set  out  on 
foot  in  the  prosecution  of  his  long  and  perilous  journey. 

All  went  well  until,  as  he  passed  a  lonely  spot  just  north  of 
Tarrytown  on  September  23,  he  was  suddenly  stopped  by  three 
Americans  named  Paulding,  Williams  and  Van  Wert,  who  sud- 
denly appeared  from  the  bushes  and  inquired  his  name  and  business. 
Mistaking  them  for  friends,  Andre  revealed  his  identity,  only  to 
be  informed  to  his  amazement  that  he  had  fallen  into  the  hands 
of  enemies.  The  men  insisted  on  searching  him,  and  found  in 
his  stocking  several  papers  and  drawings  relating  to  the  works 
at  West  Point  in  Arnold's  own  handwriting.  No  promise  of 
money,  entreaties  or  threats  could  induce  his  captors  to  release  their 
prisoner,  and  accordingly  they  took  him  to  headquarters  and  de- 
livered him  up  to  Colonel  Jameson.  On  the  morning  of  September 
25,  while  at  breakfast,  Arnold  was  handed  a  note  by  a  courier,  in- 
forming him  of  the  arrest  of  Andre  with  compromising  documents 
in  his  possession.  Quietly  reading  the  missive  with  but  slight  ap- 
pearance of  emotion,  he  rose  from  the  table,  excused  himself,  bade 
his  wife  farewell,  and  hurried  away.  Mounting  a  large  barge 
anchored  in  the  Hudson  near  by,  he  rowed  eighteen  miles  down 
the  river  to  where  the  Vulture  was  still  waiting  for  Andre,  was 
taken  aboard  and  in  due  course  reached  New  York  in  safety,  thus 
escaping  the  ignominious  death  that  he  would  have  received  as  a 
traitor  had  he  been  captured.  When  Washington  received  the 
news  he  remarked  to  Lafayette  and  Knox  with  tears  in  his  eyes: 
"  Arnold  is  a  traitor,  and  has  fled  to  the  British !  Whom  can  we 
trust  now?"  for  the  thought  that  the  conspiracy  might  be  wide- 
spread was  apparently  the  first  to  flash  into  his  mind. 

Arnold  had  escaped,  but  not  so  Andre.  A  military  commis- 
sion was  promptly  organized  and  Andre  was  put  on  trial  charged 
with  being  a  spy.  With  equal  promptness  he  was  found  guilty 
and  sentenced  to  be  hanged,  and  on  October  2,  nine  days  after  his 
capture,  the  sentence  was  carried  into  execution.  Every  means 
was  exhausted  by  the  British  authorities  to  save  him  from  the 
gallows,  but  nothing  except  the  surrender  of  Arnold  for  punishment 
in  his  stead  could  have  sufficed,  and  this  the  British  authorities  de- 
clined to  do.  While  there  was  a  feeling  of  general  sympathy  for 
the  cruel  fate  of  this  gallant  young  officer,  whose  handsome  figure 
and  charm  of  manner  captivated  the  crowds  who  saw  him  die, 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  traitorous  wretch  who  most 


278  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1780 

deserved  punishment  had  escaped,  yet  he  was  a  spy  and  the  laws  of 
war  allowed  no  other  alternative.  Moreover,  it  was  identical  with 
the  case  of  Nathan  Hale,  a  young  American,  who  had  been  cap- 
tured and  hanged  as  a  spy  by  the  British  during  the  Long  Island 
campaign  of  1776.  Major  Andre's  remains  were  interred  at  Tap- 
pan  on  the  banks  of  the  Hudson  near  by;  but  in  1821  were  removed 
to  England  and  given  a  place  in  Westminster  Abbey  alongside  of 
those  of  England's  greatest  heroes.  The  inscription  on  his  tomb 
recites  the  simple  truth  that  "  he  fell  a  sacrifice  to  his  zeal  for  his 
king  and  country,"  and  that  he  "  was  universally  beloved  and  es- 
teemed by  the  army  in  which  he  served,  and  lamented  by  his  foes." 
Soon  after  this  act  of  treason  Arnold  was  sent  by  Sir  Henry 
Clinton  on  a  marauding  expedition  into  Virginia,  where  he  in- 
flicted all  the  injury  that  lay  within  his  power  on  the  inhabitants 
whose  cause  he  had  betrayed.  After  the  war  he  moved  to  England, 
where  he  spent  the  remainder  of  his  days,  leaving  descendants,  who 
at  a  later  time  rose  to  distinction.  Tradition  relates  that  while  on 
his  deathbed  in  June,  1801,  his  mind  dwelling  on  the  triumphs  of  his 
better  days,  he  called  for  his  old  American  uniform  —  a  present 
from  Washington  in  recognition  of  his  gallantry  at  Saratoga,  and 
put  it  on,  asking  that  he  might  be  permitted  to  die  with  it  around 
him,  and  praying  forgiveness  for  having  ever  worn  another. 

Ill 

RECOVERY   OF   THE    CAROLINAS 

The  gloom  and  despair  caused  by  the  rout  of  Gates  and  the 
treason  of  Arnold  was  but  the  darkness  before  the  dawn.  The 
tide  now  turned,  and  henceforth  until  the  close  of  the  war  the 
military  operations  of  the  Americans  were  crowned  by  an  almost 
unbroken  series  of  victories.  In  September,  1780,  an  expedition  of 
British  and  Tories  was  completely  routed  near  Camden  by  the 
Americans,  and  a  little  later  the  gallant  Marion  fell  upon  a  British 
force  on  the  Santee,  captured  a  considerable  portion  of  it  and 
released  a  hundred  and  fifty  American  prisoners. 

After  the  battle  of  Camden  Cornwallis  set  out  for  an  invasion 
of  North  Carolina.  With  the  approach  of  his  army  to  the  North 
Carolina  frontier  the  hardy  backwoodsmen  from  beyond  the  moun- 
tains rose  almost  to  a  man  and  swarmed  in  from  everv  direction 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       279 

1730 

under  their  leaders,  James  Williams,  William  Campbell,  Isaac 
Shelby,  John  Sevier  and  others.  By  the  last  of  September  3,000  of 
these  picturesque  mountaineers,  dressed  in  buckskin  hunting  shirts 
and  fringed  leggins,  armed  with  long  knives  and  rifles,  had  assem- 
bled at  a  point  near  the  northwest  boundary,  between  North  and 
South  Carolina,  prepared  to  dispute  Cornwallis's  advance.  On  Oc- 
tober 7  a  detachment  of  them,  over  one  thousand  strong,  fell  upon 
a  British  force  of  about  1,000  men  under  General  Ferguson  at 
King's  Mountain,  near  the  border  line. 

Ferguson  was  bitterly  hated  by  the  Carolina  patriots  on  ac- 
count of  his  brutality  and  for  his  remarkable  success  in  winning 
over  loyalists  and  enlisting  them  under  his  standard.  He  had  not, 
however,  like  Tarleton,  permitted  his  troops  to  massacre  prisoners 
and  outrage  women,  and  was  a  brave  and  formidable  fighter.  The 
British  were  posted  on  a  mountainous  ridge,  from  which  they 
boasted  that  all  the  rebels  in  America  could  not  dislodge  them. 
But  the  backwoodsmen  knew  how  to  scale  mountains;  they  crept 
up  the  sides  of  the  ridge  in  the  face  of  the  British  fire,  and,  al- 
though driven  back  again  and  again,  finally  drove  the  enemy  from 
the  crest.  The  British  lost  one-third  of  their  entire  force,  over 
four  hundred  men,  including  Ferguson,  who  was  killed  by  a  North 
Carolina  rifleman,  while  six  hundred  of  their  men  were  taken  pris- 
oners. The  American  loss  did  not  exceed  thirty  men  killed,  but 
among  them  was  one  of  their  leaders,  James  Williams.  The  rem- 
nant of  Ferguson's  army  was  surrendered  to  the  Americans,  who, 
after  the  battle  retired  with  the  spoils  to  their  homes  beyond  the 
mountains  as  suddenly  as  they  had  come  forth,  and  took  no  further 
part  in  the  contest.5 

King's  Mountain  was  one  of  the  most  picturesque  battles  of 
the  war  as  it  was  one  of  the  most  decisive.  The  outlook  now  began 
to  grow  brighter,  and  the  hopes  of  the  patriots  were  further  raised 
at  this  juncture  by  the  arrival  in  December  of  Daniel  Morgan,  the 
famous  commander  of  the  Virginia  riflemen,  and  of  General  Na- 
thanael  Greene,  who  came  as  the  successor  of  Gates,  and  who  was 
soon  to  earn  a  military  reputation  second  only  to  Washington's. 
Greene  had  already  won  the  full  confidence  of  the  commander-in- 
chief,  yet  like  Arnold,  he  had  been  slighted  by  Congress  and  driven 
into   retirement.     Washington,  however,   was  quick  to  appreciate 

5  Lodge,  "  Story  of  the  Revolution,"  p.  390 ;  Sloane,  "  The  French  War  and 
the  Revolution,"  p.  320. 


*>80 


T  H  E     U  N  I  T  E  1)     S  T  ATES 


1780 


his  military  talent,  and  when  requested  by  Congress  to  select  a 
commander  to  succeed  Gates  he  promptly  chose  Greene.  Greene 
called  upon  Congress  for  men,  money,  arms,  stores  and  ample  au- 
thority, and  sent  requests  for  similar  aid  to  various  State  executives. 


The  remnant  of  Gates's  army  added  to  some  two  thousand  militia 
raised  in  Virginia  gave  him  a  force  of  about  five  thousand  men. 
though  rather  poorly  equipped  and  badly  disciplined. 

Dividing  his  army  into  two  parts,  he  sent  Morgan  with  some 
nine  hundred  men  to  the  western  part  of  the  State  to  cooperate 
with  the  mountaineers  and  annoy  the  British  who  occupied  several 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        281 

1780-1781 

important  posts  in  that  region.  Cornwallis  likewise  divided  his 
army  and  sent  Colonel  Tarleton,  also  a  noted  cavalry  leader,  with 
over  one  thousand  men  to  capture  Morgan.  On  January  17,  1781, 
the  two  armies  met  at  a  place  known  as  the  Cowpens,  in  the  north- 
western part  of  the  State,  a  few  miles  from  King's  Mountain.  The 
British  began  the  attack  about  sunrise,  and  for  a  time  the  advantage 
was  on  their  side,  but  eventually  they  began  to  waver  under  the 
charges  of  the  militia,  and  finally  threw  down  their  arms  and  fled 
in  complete  rout.  Their  loss  reached  nearly  two  hundred  men  in 
killed  and  wounded,  besides  two  cannon  and  one  thousand  stand  of 
small  arms.6  The  greater  part  of  the  remainder  of  Tarleton's 
men  were  taken  prisoners,  while  he  and  a  handful  of  his  followers 
escaped  to  the  mountains.  The  battle  of  Cowpens,  a  fit  supplement 
to  that  of  King's  Mountain,  was  one  of  the  most  brilliant  victories 
which  the  Americans  had  won,  although  the  numbers  engaged 
were  small  and  the  results  relatively  unimportant.  It  was  now 
no  longer  a  question  of  how  much  territory  the  British  would  over- 
run; but  of  how  long  they  could  hold  the  ground  which  they 
already  occupied. 

Flushed  with  victory,  Greene  turned  his  attention  to  Corn- 
wallis, whose  effective  strength  had  been  greatly  weakened  by  the 
destruction  of  Tarleton's  army.  In  the  hope  of  drawing  Cornwallis 
away  from  his  base  of  operations  and  attacking  him,  Greene  set  out 
on  a  long  retreat  to  the  northward.  Cornwallis  fell  into  the  trap 
and  followed  in  hot  pursuit.  Across  the  State  of  North  Carolina 
the  two  armies  raced,  covering  altogether  a  distance  of  two  hundred 
miles.  On  February  9,  1781,  Greene  reached  Guilford  Court 
House,  thirty  miles  from  the  Virginia  border,  and  being  joined  by 
Morgan's  forces,  faced  about,  and  after  several  weeks  of  maneuver- 
ing offered  the  enemy  battle,  March  15.  Greene  had  the  advantage 
in  numbers,  his  army  outnumbering  his  opponents  two  to  one,  al- 
though his  men  were  largely  raw  recruits,  and  consequently  greatly 
inferior  in  discipline  to  the  trained  veterans  of  his  adversary,  and 
besides  were  destitute  and  worn  out.7 

In  the  beginning  of  the  battle  the  American  militia  were  driven 
back  by  the  heavy  charges  of  Cornwallis's  veterans,  but  a  rout  was 
prevented  by  the  resistance  offered  by  Colonel  William  Washing- 
ton's cavalry.     After  several  hours  of  stubborn  and  desperate  fight- 

fi  MeCrady,  "History  of  South  Carolina  in  the  Revolution.  1780-T7S3."  p.  95. 
7  Sloane,   "  The   French   War  and   the   Revolution,"  p.   332. 


282  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1781 

ing,  the  British  retired  to  an  elevation,  from  which  it  proved  im- 
possible to  dislodge  them.  Thereupon,  Greene  withdrew,  leaving 
the  enemy  in  possession  of  the  field,  but  too  badly  weakened  to 
renew  the  attack.  Cornwallis  lost  over  four  hundred  men  killed, 
wounded  and  missing,  while  Greene's  loss  reached  about  two  hun- 
dred, not  including  several  hundred  militia  "  who  went  home,"  as 
Greene  said,  "  to  kiss  their  sweethearts  and  wives."  Cornwallis 
claimed  the  victory,  but  Charles  Fox,  on  learning  the  true  facts, 
is  alleged  to  have  declared  that  "  such  another  victory  would  de- 
stroy the  British  army." 

Instead  of  pursuing  the  enemy  Cornwallis  resumed  his  march 
and  proceeded  into  Virginia,  leaving  his  own  wounded  as  well  as 
the  American  on  the  field.  Greene  soon  started  after  him ;  but  in 
a  few  days  changed  his  plan  and  returned  to  South  Carolina  with 
the  intention  of  clearing  the  State  of  the  British  who  still  held 
Camden,  Ninety-Six  and  Augusta.  Sustaining  a  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  Lord  Rawdon,  a  bold  and  energetic  officer,  at  Hobkirk's 
Hill,  on  April  25,  he  nevertheless  forced  his  adversary  to  abandon 
the  place  in  the  following  month,  thus  gaining  easily  the  great  prize 
for  which  Gates  had  vainly  contended  more  than  a  year  before. 
Other  victories  now  followed  in  quick  succession.  Augusta  fell 
early  in  June,  opening  the  way  to  the  heart  of  Georgia,  and  before 
the  end  of  the  month  Ninety-Six,  the  last  stronghold  of  the  enemy 
in  upper  South  Carolina,  and  altogether  the  strongest  post  in  the 
south,  was  taken  after  a  siege  lasting  nearly  a  month. 

Thus  within  a  period  of  ninety  days  after  Greene's  return 
to  South  Carolina  he  had  recovered  the  greater  part  of  the  State, 
and  had  dispossessed  the  enemy  of  all  its  strongholds  except 
Charleston.8  Finally  Greene  completed  his  remarkable  campaign 
—  the  last  of  the  Revolution  but  one  —  by  attacking  the  British  at 
Eutaw  Springs,  near  the  Santee,  September  8,  and,  so  far  as 
strategic  results  were  concerned,  winning  a  decisive  victory.  After 
nearly  three  years  of  effort  to  subjugate  the  south,  having  lost  large 
numbers  of  men  and  made  enormous  sacrifices,  the  British  had 
been  driven  out  of  South  Carolina  with  the  single  exception  of 
Charleston,  which  they  continued  to  hold  until  the  middle  of  De- 
cember, 1 782.° 

B  For  a  criticism  of  Greene  as  a  military  strategist,  see  McCrady,  "  History 
of  South  Carolina  in  the  Revolution,  1780-1783,"  pp.  3-10. 

9  McCrady  give*   a    list   of    137   "battles,   actions  and   engagements"   which 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        283 

1781 

IV 

YORKTOWN 

Cornwallis,  after  the  battle  of  Guilford  Court  House,  instead 
of  following  Greene  back  to  South  Carolina,  continued  his  march 
toward  the  northeast,  and  in  May  reached  the  neighborhood  of 
Petersburg,  Virginia,  with  some  5,000  veterans,  bent  on  the  con- 
quest of  the  Old  Dominion,  a  rich  and  populous  State,  which  was 
quite  undefended,  and  which  untouched  had  been  a  strong  re- 
source and  support  to  the  general  cause  of  the  Revolution.10  Here 
he  was  confronted  by  the  young  Lafayette,  then  in  his  twenty-third 
year,  who,  with  3,000  raw  militiamen,  had  been  sent  to  Virginia 
by  Washington  to  check  the  raids  of  Benedict  Arnold.  With  this 
inferior  force  the  young  Frenchman  outwitted  his  antagonist, 
harassed  him  on  every  side,  all  the  time  skillfully  avoiding  a  battle, 
and  by  a  campaign  of  adroit  maneuvering  held  Cornwallis  in  check, 
thus  proving  himself  a  strategist  of  high  order. 

During  the  summer  Lafayette's  army  was  reenforced  from  va- 
rious sources  until  it  numbered  more  than  4,000  men.  It  was  now 
evident  to  Cornwallis  that  he  would  be  unable  to  "  catch  the  boy," 
as  he  had  boasted,  and  so  he  abandoned  upper  Virginia  and  re- 
treated to  the  coast,  taking  up  his  position  at  Yorktown  near  the 
mouth  of  the  York  River.  This  afforded  a  safe  base  of  operations, 
and  insured  ample  supplies  and  reinforcements  through  connection 
with  England.  Lafayette  followed  and  took  up  a  position  at  Mal- 
vern Hill,  directly  in  front  of  him,  and  waited  for  developments. 

Ever  since  the  battle  of  Monmouth  in  1778  Washington's  army 
had  been  keeping  guard  of  the  Hudson  and  had  taken  no  part  in  the 
campaigns  of  the  south.  During  all  this  time  he  had  looked  anx- 
iously toward  the  city  of  New  York,  then  held  by  Clinton,  and  had 
longed  to  recover  it  from  the  enemy.  Early  in  1781  he  began  to 
devise  schemes  for  an  attack  upon  this,  almost  the  last  stronghold 
of  the  British  in  America,  being  encouraged  thereto  by  the  arrival 
of  6,000  French  troops  from  Rhode  Island  under  Count  Rocham- 
beau.     In  August  the  situation  was  changed  by  the  arrival  of  news 

took  place  in  South  Carolina  during  the  Revolution,  103  of  which  were  fought 
by  South  Carolinians  alone.  See  his  "  South  Carolina  in  the  Revolution,  1780- 
1783,"  pp.  734-736,  and  also  appendix  B. 

10  Lodge,    "  Story    of   the    Revolution,"    p.   497. 


284 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1781 


that  a  powerful  French  fleet  under  Admiral  de  Grasse  was  on  its 
way  from  the  West  Indies  to  Chesapeake  Bay  and  that  Cornwallis 
had  taken  up  his  position  at  Yorktown.  Washington  now  changed 
his  plan,  and  decided  to  transfer  the  combined  French-American 
army  to  Virginia,  and  with  the  aid  of  De  Grasse's  fleet  overwhelm 
and  capture  Cornwallis's  army.  Leaving  General  Heath  with  4,000 
men  to  hold  West  Point,  he  crossed  the  Hudson  on  August  19,  and 
with  2,000  Americans  and  4,000  Frenchmen  set  out  on  his  march 


THE 
SIEGE  OF  YORKTOWN 


Ssl  S^--ArV*«j*nUjnco/n 

))%[  #  ■a-Gar.Helson 

>      JW     -Jn^n'Cli-nion 

.*#      *nPt*>lttun. 

A.American 
s.  British 
F-  French 

for  Virginia.  The  destination  of  the  army  was  kept  a  profound 
secret  from  everyone  except  Rochambeau,  for  it  was  necessary  to 
keep  Clinton  in  the  dark  as  to  Washington's  movements.  So  skill- 
fully was  this  done  that  it  was  not  until  the  army  had  reached 
Philadelphia  that  Washington's  purposes  were  definitely  known  to 
the  British.  The  march  through  Philadelphia  was  the  occasion  of  a 
great  popular  demonstration,  for  the  joy  of  the  inhabitants  at 
the  prospect  of  the  early  capture  of  Cornwallis  knew  no  bounds. 
Finally,  toward  September  18,  the  army  had  reached  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Yorktown  after  a  month  of  tiresome  marching  in  the  heat 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       285 

1781 

and  dust  of  summer.  There  were  now  not  less  than  12,000 
American  troops  on  the  ground  ready  to  attack  Cornwallis. 

Meantime,  De  Grasse's  fleet  had  arrived  at  the  mouth  of  the 
York  River,  and  4,000  French  troops  had  been  sent  ashore  to  reen- 
force  the  American  army.  An  English  fleet  under  Admiral  Hood 
had  followed  De  Grasse  from  the  West  Indies,  but  had  sailed  past 
him,  and  seeing  no  trace  of  the  fleet  in  the  Chesapeake  proceeded 
on  to  New  York  to  get  instructions  from  Admiral  Graves,  who 
commanded  the  naval  force  in  the  north.11  Learning  the  true  situa- 
tion, Admiral  Graves  put  back  for  the  Chesapeake,  where,  on  Sep- 
tember 5,  he  found  the  French  fleet  at  the  mouth  of  the  bay  and 
proceeded  to  attack  it.  After  a  sharp  fight  of  several  hours  the 
British  fleet  withdrew  and  sailed  away,  leaving  De  Grasse  in  control 
of  the  bay.  This  insured  the  capture  of  Cornwallis,  for  he  was  now 
surrounded  on  all  sides  and  escape  was  impossible.  Slowly  the 
toils  were  drawn  about  him;  all  efforts  to  cut  his  way  out  were 
thwarted  by  the  vigilant  Americans.  Likewise  the  attempt  of  Clin- 
ton to  divert  Washington  by  sending  Arnold  to  devastate  and 
plunder  the  coast  of  Connecticut  was  unavailing.  Day  after  day  the 
works  of  the  British  crumbled  under  the  artillery  fire  of  the  Amer- 
icans, and,  the  last  hope  of  escape  being  gone,  Cornwallis  hoisted 
the  white  flag  October  17,  1781.  Two  days  later  he  formally  sur- 
rendered, and  his  entire  army  of  8,000  men  became  prisoners  of 
war.  Cornwallis,  feigning  illness,  sent  his  sword  by  General 
O'Hara,  and  the  army  marched  out  with  colors  furled,  while  the 
band  played  "  The  World's  Turned  Upside  Down,"  —  a  tune  which 
probably  expressed  very  accurately  the  feelings  of  the  men  engaged 
in  the  unhappy  business  of  laying  down  their  arms  that  October 
afternoon. 

The  surrender  of  Cornwallis  virtually  ended  the  war,  and  no 
further  campaigns  were  undertaken,  although  a  state  of  hostilities 
legally  existed  until  the  signing  of  the  definitive  treaty  of  peace  on 
September  3,  1783,  nearly  two  years  later.  It  was  five  days  before 
the  joyful  news  of  the  surrender  reached  Philadelphia,  and  imme- 
diately the  city  was  astir  with  evidences  of  popular  rejoicing.  Con- 
gress marched  in  a  body  to  the  Lutheran  church,  where  a  thanks- 
giving service  was  held  in  gratitude  to  Almighty  God  for  the  result. 
.•Everywhere  the  event  was  celebrated  by  blazing  bonfires,  the  sing- 
ing of  triumphal  hymns  and  the  holding  of  thanksgiving  services. 
11  Fiske,    "  The   American    Revolution,"   vol.    ii.   p.   279. 


286  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1782 

A  month  later  the  news  reached  England,  and  when  it  was  laid 
before  Lord  North,  Prime  Minister,  it  is  said  he  threw  up  his  hands 
and  exclaimed:  "Oh,  God!  it  is  all  over!"  His  ministry  was 
now  doomed,  and  on  March  20,  1782,  it  resigned  —  an  event  which 
was  full  of  good  omen  for  the  English  race  the  world  over.12 

The  way  was  now  open  for  peace.  In  March,  1782,  Franklin, 
at  Paris,  addressed  a  letter  to  Lord  Shelburne,  with  whom  he  was 
personally  acquainted,  and  who  as  secretary  of  state  for  colonial 
and  home  affairs,  was  charged  with  the  conduct  of  all  matters  relat- 
ing to  the  colonies,  expressing  the  hope  that  a  "  general  peace  " 
might  soon  be  restored.  Shelburne  replied  by  sending  over  to  Paris 
a  Scotchman,  named  Richard  Oswald,  who  by  marriage  and  pur- 
chase had  acquired  large  estates  in  America,  to  talk  with  Franklin, 
to  ascertain  the  conditions  upon  which  a  treaty  could  be  concluded, 
and  to  acquaint  him  with  the  views  of  the  British  Government. 
Franklin  at  first  placed  his  terms  rather  high,  demanding  among 
other  things  the  cession  of  Canada  to  the  United  States,  whether 
seriously  or  not,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  Returning  to  London,  Oswald 
laid  before  Shelburne  Franklin's  views,  and,  after  a  brief  absence, 
was  sent  back  to  Paris  to  say  that  Canada  could  not  be  ceded,  and 
that,  moreover,  the  Americans  would  be  expected  to  indemnify  the 
loyalists  for  the  losses  which  they  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of 
American  legislatures,  and  possibly  to  make  some  compensation  for 
the  surrender  of  New  York,  Charleston  and  Savannah,  then  held 
by  British  troops.  In  July  the  short-lived  Rockingham  ministry 
fell,  and,  after  some  difficulty,  a  new  one  was  formed  with  Shel- 
burne as  Prime  Minister.  This  change  of  government  together 
with  the  defeat  at  this  time  of  the  French  and  the  Spaniards  by  the 
British  in  several  notable  engagements,  simplified  the  task  of  mak- 
ing a  treaty.  In  the  meantime,  also,  Congress  had  appointed  John 
Adams,  John  Jay,  then  in  Spain,  and  Henry  Laurens,  now  out  of 
the  Tower  on  parole,  to  join  Franklin  in  the  conduct  of  the  negotia- 
tions. France  had  hoped  that  her  ally,  Spain,  would  be  able  to 
recover  Gibraltar  from  the  British,  but  being  disappointed  in  this 
hope,  she  now  undertook  to  repay  Spain  for  her  losses  by  inducing 
the  British  Government  to  cede  to  the  latter  power  a  large  tract 
of  land  in  America  between  the  Alleghany  Mountains  and  the 
Mississippi  River.  In  other  words,  France  proposed  to  pay  Spain 
for  her  services  out  of  the  territory  which  the  Americans  had  con- 
12  Fiske,    "  Critical    Period,"    p.    1. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        287 

1782 

quered  from  England  in  1779,  and  the  cession  of  which  they 
expected  to  insist  upon  in  the  treaty  of  peace. 

When  they  discovered,  therefore,  as  they  believed,  that  the 
French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Count  Vergennes,  was  attempt- 
ing to  steal  a  march  on  them,  the  American  ministers  (Adams  and 
Jay  had  recently  arrived  to  aid  in  the  negotiations)  decided  to 
begin  a  separate  negotiation  with  England.  This  action  of  the 
American  commissioners  was  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  Treaty 
of  Alliance  of  1778  with  France,  which  prohibited  either  party  to 
the  alliance  from  concluding  peace  with  Great  Britain  without  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  the  other,  and  was  also  contrary  to  the 
instructions  of  the  American  commissioners,  but  they  justified  their 
action  on  the  ground  that  the  attempt  of  France  to  enrich  her  ally 
at  the  expense  of  the  United  States  required  independent  negotia- 
tions —  a  proceeding  founded  on  the  law  of  self-preservation. 
Franklin  did  not  share  the  suspicions  of  Adams  and  Jay  as  to  the 
conduct  of  Vergennes,  but  he  nevertheless  acted  with  them  in  nego- 
tiating independently  with  Great  Britain.13 

Of  the  various  questions  to  be  settled  in  the  negotiations,  that 
of  independence  was  the  most  important.  The  American  demand 
for  an  unqualified  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  United 
States  was  conceded  without  hesitation.  The  question  of  boun- 
daries was  likewise  easily  disposed  of,  Franklin's  demand  for  the 
cession  of  Canada  being  abandoned  as  too  extravagant.  The  St. 
Croix  River  was  to  be  the  boundary  on  the  northeast,  the  crest  of 
the  highlands  between  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,  the  forty-fifth  parallel  and  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  source 
of  the  Mississippi  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  was  to  be  the 
boundary  on  the  north.  The  Mississippi  River  on  the  west  and  the 
thirty-first  parallel  on  the  south  completed  the  boundaries.14 

With  regard  to  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  which  the  colonists 
had  enjoyed  without  restriction,  and  which  were  a  source  of  enor- 
mous profit  to  the  New  England  inhabitants,  as  well  as  a  nursery  of 
American  seamen,  the  treaty  provided  that  the  right  of  the  Amer- 
icans to  take  fish  on  the  Grand  Banks  should  be  conceded  by  Great 
Britain,  and  that  they  should  be  accorded  the  liberty  to  fish  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  and  in  the  bays  and  on  the  coasts  of  New- 

13  See  Moore,  "  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  30. 

14  For  the  settlement  of  various  controversies  over  the  boundary  stipulations 
see  J.  B.  Moore,  "  International  Arbitrations,"  vol.  i.  chs.  i.-vi. 


288  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1782-1783 

foundland,  but  not  to  dry  their  catch  on  the  shores  of  the  island. 
With  regard  to  private  debts  due  from  Americans  to  British  cred- 
itors, aggregating  some  three  millions  sterling,  mostly  contracted 
before  the  Revolution,  it  was  provided  that  the  debts  should  be  paid 
in  full  sterling  money,  that  no  unlawful  impediments  or  obstacles 
should  be  placed  in  the  way  of  the  collection  of  such  debts,  and  that 
British  creditors  should  be  free  to  resort  to  American  courts  to 
prosecute  their  claims. 

A  question  which  proved  difficult  of  settlement  was  the  demand 
of  the  British  negotiators  that  the  Americans  should  provide  an 
indemnification  for  the  loyalists.  To  this  demand  Franklin  and 
his  colleagues  returned  an  emphatic  non  possumus.  These  people, 
said  Franklin,  were  largely  responsible  for  their  own  unfortunate 
condition,  inasmuch  as  they  had  by  their  misrepresentations  aided 
in  bringing  on  the  war ;  moreover,  they  had  forfeited  all  right  to  an 
indemnity  by  the  ruthless  and  cruel  manner  in  which  they  had,  in 
league  with  savages,  plundered  and  desolated  the  frontier  settle- 
ments of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania;  and,  lastly,  the  people  of 
America  were  too  impoverished  by  the  long  war  to  provide  pensions 
for  their  own  patriots,  much  less  compensate  those  who  had,  by 
word  and  deed,  aided  their  enemies.  No  amount  of  pressure  could 
move  the  American  commissioners  from  this  position,  and  the  only 
concession  that  could  be  secured  was  a  stipulation  to  the  effect  that 
Congress  would  recommend  to  the  several  States  to  desist  from 
further  proceedings  against  the  loyalists,  to  reconsider  their  harsh 
laws,  and  afford  legal  redress  to  such  persons  as  desired  to  have 
recourse  to  the  courts  for  the  recovery  of  their  estates.  Congress, 
indeed,  duly  made  the  recommendation,  but  it  was  not  generally 
followed;  and  thus  the  treaty  stipulation  proved  worthless. 

With  these  important  questions  settled  the  minor  points  were 
quickly  agreed  upon,  and  the  preliminary  treaty  was  signed  Novem- 
ber 30.  1782,  although  it  was  nearly  a  year  later  before  the  definitive 
treaty  received  the  signatures  of  the  commissioners.  In  nearly 
every  particular  the  Americans  had  secured  an  acknowledgment  of 
their  demands,  and  had  themselves  granted  -few  concessions.  It 
was  truly  a  great  diplomatic  triumph,  and  will  ever  stand  as  a 
monument  to  the  diplomatic  skill  and  shrewdness  of  the  American 
negotiators.15  But  in  violating  their  instructions,  as  well  as  the 
stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1778  with  regard  to  joint  negotiations 

10  Lccky,  "History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,"  vol.  iv.  p.  263. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       289 

1783 

with  the  French,  the  American  commissioners  had  brought  down 
upon  their  heads  the  denunciation  of  the  King  of  France,  who 
charged  them  with  duplicity  and  bad  faith.  Franklin  undertook  to 
defend  their  conduct  in  a  letter  to  Vergennes,  in  which  he  admitted 
that  they  had  "  been  guilty  of  neglecting  a  point  of  bienseance,  but 
that  it  was  not  from  want  of  respect  for  the  king,  whom,"  he  said, 
"  all  Americans  loved  and  honored,'"  and  he  hoped  that  it  would  be 
overlooked  and  that  the  "  great  work  which  has  hitherto  been  so 
happily  conducted,  and  is  so  glorious  to  his  reign,  will  not  be  ruined 
by  any  indiscretion  of  ours."  16  The  terms  of  the  treaty  were 
unanimously  approved  in  America,  but  the  feeling  of  the  majority 
of  Congress  was  that  the  commissioners  were  not  warranted  in 
departing  from  their  instructions,  and  in  signing  without  first  mak- 
ing known  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  the  French  Government.17 
The  Americans  had  hoped  to  be  able  to  conclude  a  commercial  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  but  in  this  they  were  disappointed,  and  many 
years  were  to  pass  before  Great  Britain  would  consent  to  treat  on 
the  subject. 1S 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS 

It  would  be  insufficient  to  dismiss  the  Revolution  without  a 
brief  reference  to  several  important  aspects  of  the  struggle  which 
could  not  be  well  described  above  without  interfering  with  the 
thread  of  the  narrative.  One  of  these  was  the  naval  achievements 
of  the  war.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  the  colonies,  of 
course,  had  no  navy,  although  they  possessed  a  considerable  mer- 
chant marine,  which  became  the  basis  of  an  effective  privateering 
service.  Letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  were  freely  issued,  both  by 
Congress  and  the  States,  to  privateers,  and  at  one  time  it  was  esti- 
mated that  not  less  than  70,000  persons  were  engaged  in  preying 
on  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain.10  A  comparison  between  the 
military  and  naval  forces  shows  that  the  navy,  in  its  various  forms, 

16  John  Bassett  Moore,  "  Beginnings  of  American  Diplomacy,"  in  Harper's 
Magazine,  vol.  cviii.  p.  507. 

17  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  69. 

18  See  Jay,  "  The  Peace  Negotiations,"  in  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  History," 
vol.  vii.  ch.  ii. 

19  Sloane,  "  French  War  and  the  Revolution,"  p.  373. 


5290  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1783 

embodied  almost  as  many  men  as  the  army,  and  sometimes,  indeed, 
more.20  From  first  to  last,  over  fifteen  hundred  armed  vessels  were 
fitted  out  as  privateers  in  the  United  States,  Massachusetts  heading 
the  list  with  over  five  hundred.  Congress,  devoting  its  main  ener- 
gies to  the  support  of  the  army,  gave  little  attention  to  the  question 
of  organizing  a  navy.  Nevertheless,  it  made  a  beginning  in  1775  by 
ordering  the  construction  of  thirteen  cruisers,  which  were  in  the 
course  of  time  completed,  but  less  than  half  of  them  ever  succeeded 
in  getting  to  sea.  Later,  some  forty  vessels  of  various  types  were 
put  into  the  service  of  the  Continental  Congress,  but  more  than  half 
of  them  were  captured  by  the  enemy.  Yet  notwithstanding  the 
feeble  character  of  the  navy,  it  accomplished  much. 

Before  the  French  alliance  more  than  six  hundred  British  ves- 
sels had  been  taken  by  daring  American  seamen  who  hovered  about 
the  coasts  of  England  and  Scotland.  The  three  men  whose  names 
are  most  closely  associated  with  these  naval  triumphs  were  Lambert 
Wickes,  who  in  the  early  years  of  the  war  captured  many  prizes  in 
the  eastern  Atlantic ;  Gustavus  Conyngham,  whose  operations  in  the 
English  Channel  sent  marine  insurance  rates  up  25  per  cent. ;  and 
John  Paul  Jones,  a  Scotch  sailor,  who  shortly  before  the  Revolution 
had  taken  up  his  residence  in  Virginia,  and  who  was  destined  to 
become  the  greatest  naval  hero  of  the  war.21  Appointed  captain  in 
the  American  navy,  Jones  sailed  for  the  English  Channel,  and,  with 
a  single  vessel,  captured  several  British  prizes,  and  caused  general 
consternation  in  maritime  circles.  In  the  summer  of  1779  he  took 
command  of  a  squadron  of  three  vessels,  of  which  the  Bonhomme 
Richard  (40  guns)  was  the  chief,  and  in  September  arrived  oft"  the 
east  coast  of  Scotland,  where  he  proceeded  to  destroy  or  capture 
English  vessels  as  they  came  along.  While  at  this  business,  near 
Flamborough  Head,  he  descried  a  merchant  fleet  bound  for  the  Bal- 
tic and  convoyed  by  the  Scrapis  and  the  Countess  of  Scarborough, 
both  together  carrying  sixty-four  guns.  Jones  gave  chase  in  the 
Bonhomme  RicJiard,  and  after  dark  on  the  evening  of  September 
23-  J779'  attacked  the  Scrapis,  and  a  duel  between  the  two  ships 
ensued,  which  was  one  of  the  most  obstinate  and  sanguinary  in  the 
history  of  naval  warfare.  At  intervals  for  several  hours  each  vessel 
poured  a  terrific  broadside  into  its  antagonist,  the  lurid  flashes  of 

20  Winsor,  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  History,"  vol.  vi.  p.  588. 

21  For  an  account  of  the  exploits  of  these  daring  seamen  see  Hale,  "  Naval 
History  of  the   Kevolution,"  in  Winsor's  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist.,"  vol.  vi.  ch.  vii. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        291 

1783 

the  cannon  lighting  up  the  inky  darkness  which  prevailed.  Finally 
Jones  succeeded,  by  the  use  of  grappling  irons,  in  lashing  the  Bon- 
hommc  Richard  to  the  Serapis,  after  which  the  fight  became  more 
of  the  nature  of  a  hand  to  hand  contest.  While  the  American  vessel 
was  being  raked  by  British  cannon,  parties  of  her  crew  climbed  into 
the  Serapis,  and  with  hand-grenades  and  other  implements  of  war- 
fare played  terrible  havoc  with  their  opponents.  Both  vessels  were 
now  in  a  sore  plight;  each  was  badly  damaged  and  afire  in  places, 
while  their  decks  were  strewn  with  the  dead  and  dying.  In  this 
situation  the  Serapis  surrendered,  but  her  adversary  kept  afloat  with 
difficulty  during  the  night  and  sank  next  morning.  While  the  fight 
between  the  Serapis  and  the  Bonhomme  Richard  was  proceeding,  the 
Pallas  captured  the  Countess  of  Scarborough,  thus  completing  the 
greatest  naval  victory  of  the  Revolution.  Though  the  military 
results  of  the  fight  were  insignificant,  the  moral  results  were  of  great 
consequence.  The  fighting  qualities  of  American  seamen  were 
clearly  established,  and  Europe  soon  rang  with  praises  for  the  dar- 
ing captain  who  had  bearded  the  lion  in  his  den,  and  inflicted  upon 
him  a  crushing  defeat.  From  various  countries  of  Europe  decora- 
tions, honors,  and  pensions  were  showered  upon  Jones,  and  he  was 
held  up  as  the  greatest  naval  hero  of  the  time,  although  the  English 
government  insisted  that  he  was,  in  legal  status,  only  a  pirate.22 

Though  not  so  picturesque  as  the  famous  victory  of  Jones,  the 
capture  by  Captain  John  Barry  of  the  Mermaid  and  the  Kitty  dem- 
onstrated in  quite  as  high  a  degree  the  qualities  of  enterprise  and 
courage.  This,  however,  was  only  one  of  Barry's  exploits.  His 
captures  were  numerous  and  his  services  scarcely  surpassed,  and  in 
1777  he  was  publicly  thanked  by  General  Washington.  Shortly 
after  his  appointment  to  command  by  Congress,  in  1776,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  taking  the  British  tender  Edzvard,  after  a  sharp  action, 
and  this  was  the  first  capture  of  a  vessel  by  a  commissioned  officer 
of  the  United  States  navy. 

Another  phase  of  the  Revolution  which  also  deserves  a  brief 
mention  was  the  financial  aspect  of  the  struggle  —  the  provision 
of  ways  and  means  for  the  support  of  the  army.  The  Continental 
Congress,  having  no  constitutional  power  of  taxation,  and  afraid 
to  assume  an  authority  so  likely  to  excite  popular  opposition,  was 
compelled  from  the  first  to  devise  other  schemes  than  taxation  for 
filling  its  treasury.  The  most  prolific  of  these  was  the  issuance  of 
22  Fiske,    "  The   American   Revolution,"   vol.   ii.   p.    129. 


THE     UNITED      STATES 

1783 

treasury  notes  —  always  a  favorite  resource  of  governments  in  time 
of  war.     During  the  first  year  of  the  war  $6,000,000  of  paper  was 
thus  put  into  circulation;  in  1776  $19,000,000  more  were  added; 
in  1777,  $13,000,000;  in  1778,  $63,500,000;  in  1779,  $140,000,000; 
making  a  total  issue  of  $241,500,000.     To  this  volume  of  paper 
currency  was  added  also  the  notes  issued  by  the  several  States. 
During  the  first  year  of  the  war  "  continental  currency  "  was  will- 
ingly received  by  the  people  at  par,  but  as  the  issues  increased 
beyond  the  requirements  of  trade,  an  inevitable  increase  of  prices 
followed,  and  with  it  a  depreciation  of  the  value  of  paper  money. 
At  the  beginning  of  1779  a  dollar  in  paper  currency  was  worth  but 
twelve  cents  in  specie,  a  year  later  it  was  worth  but  three  cents,  and 
before  the  end  of  the  war  it  was  practically  worthless,  and  all  specie 
had  disappeared  from  circulation.     As  prices  of  labor  and  com- 
modities soared  to  fabulous  heights,  the  States  began  to  pass  laws  to 
fix  the  price  of  both,  and  for  the  punishment  of  those  who  violated 
such  enactments  or  who  refused  to  receive  paper  money  at  its  par 
value.     Likewise,  Congress  enacted  a  law  authorizing  Washington 
to  seize  whatever  supplies  he  needed  for  the  army,  to  pay  what  he 
deemed  reasonable  prices,  and  to  punish  those  who  should  refuse  to 
receive  continental  money  in  payment  thereof.     It  went  even  fur- 
ther, and  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that  every  person  who 
should  refuse  to  accept  continental  bills  should  be  published,  and 
treated  as  a  public  enemy,  and  be  precluded  from  all  trade  or  inter- 
course with  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies. 

Notwithstanding  Congress  had  solemnly  pledged  the  faith  of 
the  nation  to  redeem  this  Hood  of  paper,  it  ultimately  repudiated 
the  pledge  and  passed  a  resolution  providing  for  the  redemption  of 
all  bills  of  credit  at  one-fortieth  of  their  face  value.  The  first  issues 
were  apportioned  among  the  States  according  to  the  population, 
with  the  recommendation  that  each  should  make  provision  for  re- 
deeming its  quota  by  special  taxes  for  the  purpose.  This  recom- 
mendation was  followed  in  1775,  but  unfortunately  was  disregarded 
in  the  case  of  the  succeeding  issues,  notwithstanding  the  urgent 
appeals  of  Congress.  The  loss  inflicted  on  the  people  by  the  de- 
preciation of  the  continental  currency  can  never  be  estimated.23 

But  without  resort  to  this  resource  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
war  could  have  been  carried  on,  in  view  of  the  opposition  of  the 

-3  I'or  an  account  of  the  burden?  of  the  war  see  Sumner,  "The  Financier 
and  the  Finances  of  the  Revolution,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xxiv. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       293 

1783 

people  to  taxation.  Had  Congress  possessed  the  power  to  lay  and 
collect  taxes  which  it  now  has,  the  evils  of  depreciated  currency 
could  have  been  largely  diminished.  But  it  possessed  no  such 
power,  and  had  it  attempted  to  exercise  it  its  authority  would  have 
been  destroyed  and  the  war  stopped.  In  this  situation  Congress 
resorted  to  various  expedients  for  obtaining  specie,  the  most  im- 
portant of  which  was  by  requisitions  on  the  States.  Again  and 
again  the  States  were  asked  to  contribute  their  quotas  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  war,  but  their  responses  were  tardy  and  ungenerous, 
they,  like  Congress,  preferring  to  issue  notes  rather  than  to  tax 
themselves.24 

In  1 78 1  Robert  Morris  was  put  at  the  head  of  the  continental 
treasury  with  the  title  of  Superintendent  of  Finance,  and  he  was 
able  to  bring  about  a  great  improvement  in  the  national  finances, 
among  other  things  the  placing  of  continental  affairs  on  a  specie 
basis.  He  established  the  Bank  of  North  America  at  Philadelphia, 
with  a  capital  of  $400,000,  and  the  institution  rendered  great  service 
to  Congress  by  aiding  it  to  place  its  loans.  Altogether  Morris's 
services  were  hardly  second  to  those  of  Washington  or  Greene. 
In  the  dark  days  of  the  Revolution,  when  the  army  was  on  the 
verge  of  starvation  and  naked  for  lack  of  clothes,  Morris  was  able 
to  raise  small  amounts  and  send  them  to  Washington  for  the  sup- 
port of  his  suffering  troops.25 

Franklin  urged  Congress  to  cease  issuing  bills  of  credit,  and 
borrow  what  it  needed.  But  it  proved  harder  to  borrow  than  to 
issue  paper  money.  Nevertheless  the  suggestion  was  tried  and 
some  specie  acquired  in  this  way,  both  at  home  and  abroad.  Nearly 
$8,000,000  was  borrowed  in  Europe.  Of  this  $6,352,000  was  se- 
cured from  France;  $1,304,000  from  Holland,  and  $174,000  from 
Spain,  and  the  domestic  loans  aggregated  nearly  $12,000,000.  The 
debts  incurred  by  the  several  States  amounted  to  more  than 
$18,000,000.  Taxes  to  the  amount  of  nearly  $6,000,000  were 
levied  and  collected  by  the  States,  and  nearly  $3,000,000  raised 
from  miscellaneous  sources,  such  as  gifts  from  France  and  Spain, 
lotteries,  confiscation  of  loyalist  estates,  sales  of  public  land,  and 
prizes  taken  at  sea.  Altogether  the  war  cost,  according  to  a 
competent  authority,  about  one  hundred  million  dollars.26 

24  See    Oberholtzer,    "  Robert    Morris,    Patriot    and    Financier,"    ch.    iv. 

25  Ibid.,  ch.  v. 

26  C.  J.  Bullock..  "Finances  of  the  Revolution.'' 


294  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1783 

A  word  remains  to  be  said  concerning  the  fortunes  of  that 
large  class  of  Americans  who  were  opposed  to  the  Revolution,  and 
who  either  refused  to  take  up  arms  in  defense  of  the  American 
cause,  or  openly  joined  the  ranks  of  the  British  forces.  These 
persons  were  known  indiscriminately  as  Tories  or  Loyalists.  It  is 
impossible  to  estimate  their  numbers,  but  it  is  certain  that  they 
were  a  very  large  body,  and  in  some  communities  outnumbered 
the  patriots.  John  Adams  declared,  after  the  close  of  the  war, 
his  belief  that  they  numbered  nearly  one-third  of  the  people  of  the 
colonies,27  while  Joseph  Galloway,  himself  a  Loyalist,  thought  the 
proportion  was  four-fifths  or  nine-tenths.28  Altogether  not  less 
than  50,000  American  Loyalists  served  in  the  British  army,  either 
as  regulars  or  militia.29  The  English  historian,  Lecky,  a  fair  and 
impartial  authority,  expressed  the  opinion  that  at  least  one-half  of 
the  more  honorable  and  respected  Americans  were  either  openly 
or  secretly  hostile  to  the  Revolution.  It  is  certainly  true  that 
the  Loyalists  were  among  the  principal  men  of  substance  in  their 
communities,  leaders  in  political,  industrial  and  social  circles,  and 
generally  persons  of  the  highest  type  of  character.  Prominent  ex- 
amples were  Governor  Hutchinson  of  Massachusetts,  the  DeLanceys 
of  New  York,  Joseph  Galloway  of  Pennsylvania,  and  William  Tem- 
ple Franklin,  son  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  of  New  Jersey.  The  Tory 
element  was  made  up  mainly  of  royal  officials  and  their  friends ;  the 
Anglican  clergy,  whose  attachment  to  the  Crown  was  stronger 
than  their  desire  for  independence ;  conservative  persons  of  all 
classes,  who  disapproved  revolution  for  any  purpose,  or  who  be- 
lieved that  Parliament  had  a  moral  and  legal  right  to  tax  the 
colonies;  and  finally  those  who,  after  the  outbreak  of  the  war, 
became  disgusted  with  the  financial  policy  of  Congress,  the  Declar- 
ation of  Independence,  and  the  French  alliance,  and  were  induced 
to  return  to  their  old  allegiance.30 

Among  the  New  England  States,  Connecticut,  by  reason  of 
its  proximity  to  New  York  and  Canada,  had  the  greatest  number 
of  Loyalists.  Of  the  larger  and  more  popular  colonies,  Massa- 
chusetts had  the  fewest,  although  1,100  embarked  with  Howe  for 
Nova  Scotia  upon  the  evacuation  of  Boston,  in  March,    iy/6.?A 

-T  ^\'orks  of  John  Adams,  vol.  x.  p.  193. 

-8  Fisher,  "True  History  of  the  American   Revolution,"  p.  229. 

29  Van  Tyne,  "  Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolution,"  p.  183. 

30  Ibid.,  pp.  25-26. 

31  Ibid.,  p.  59. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES       295 

1783 

New  York,  of  all  the  American  colonies,  was  the  principal  Tory 
stronghold.  By  reason  of  its  nearness  to  Canada,  and  the  large 
commercial  interests  of  the  colony,  the  number  of  its  inhabitants 
who  were  opposed  to  the  Revolution  was  very  considerable.  Be- 
sides, the  city  of  New  York,  including  the  valley  of  the  lower 
Hudson,  after  the  spring  of  1776,  was  held  by  the  British,  thus 
affording  a  convenient  refuge  for  those  of  British  sympathies. 
New  York  furnished  altogether  23,000  Loyalists  to  the  British 
army.  When  Washington  was  driven  from  Long  Island  in  1776 
almost  the  entire  population  went  over  to  the  side  of  the  British.32 
Two-thirds  of  the  property  of  the  State  was  believed  to  have 
been  in  Tory  hands.  Next  to  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey  had  the  largest  number  of  Loyalists  of  any  of  the  colonies. 
When  Howe  evacuated  Philadelphia  in  1778  he  took  with  him  over 
three  thousand  of  these  persons.  In  Virginia  practically  all  of  the 
upper  class  were  patriots;  in  North  Carolina  the  two  parties  were 
pretty  equally  divided ;  in  South  Carolina  the  Loyalists  were  in  the 
majority.  When  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  abandoned  by 
the  British  in  1782,  over  13,000,  including  nearly  9,000  negroes, 
accompanied  the  British  troops. 

The  trials  and  hardships  of  the  Loyalist  class  were  especially 
severe,  and  their  fate  in  many  cases  peculiarly  sad.  By  means  of 
"  sounding  committees  "  appointed  by  Sons  of  Liberty  organiza- 
tions, the  timid  and  vacillating  were  forced  to  declare  their  sen- 
timents. If  adverse  to  the  American  cause  the  offender  was  given 
a  coat  of  tar  and  feathers,  which  seems  to  have  been  the  usual 
antidote  for  Toryism.  Sometimes  they  were  ducked  in  pools,  rid- 
den on  rails,  whipped,  branded,  boycotted,  plundered,  drummed  out 
of  the  community  and  warned  not  to  return,  or  otherwise  mal- 
treated by  patriot  mobs.  Everywhere  they  were  disfranchised  and 
proscribed.  The  courts  of  law  were  closed  to  them  and  means 
of  legal  redress  denied  them.  An  unrelenting  social  ostracism  made 
their  life  a  perpetual  misery,  and  most  of  them  were  forced  into 
exile  or  to  seek  refuge  within  the  British  lines.  In  November, 
1777,  Congress  adopted  a  resolution  recommending  the  States  to 
confiscate  and  sell  the  property  of  all  persons  "  who  had  forfeited 
their  right  to  protection."  and  turn  the  proceeds  into  State  treas- 
uries.33    The   confiscation   of   Loyalist   property,    begun    in   some 

32  Lecky,    "  American    Revolution,"   p.    256. 

33  Van   Tyne,    "  The    Loyalists    in   the    American    Revolution,"   p.    277.      The 


296  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1783 

States  before  this  resolution,  now  proceeded  by  wholesale  in  all  of 
them.  In  some  States  they  were  given  an  opportunity  to  return  to 
their  allegiance  and  save  their  estates  from  confiscation;  in  others 
no  such  opportunity  was  allowed,  and  many  were  attainted  without 
hearing,  without  jury  trial,  and  often  in  their  absence.  By  a  single 
act  of  the  Xew  York  Legislature  fifty-nine  persons,  including  three 
women,  were  thus  attainted  of  treason,  their  property  confiscated, 
the  death  penalty  imposed  on  any  who  should  be  found  in  the 
State,  and  a  special  tax  levied  on  every  parent  who  had  a  Loyalist 
son.34  In  this  State  alone  over  $3,600,000  worth  of  property 
owned  by  such  persons  was  acquired  by  the  State.  By  a  similar 
act  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  passed  in  1778,  the  death 
penalty  was  affixed  to  310  self-exiled  Loyalists,  provided  they  should 
ever  return  to  the  colony,  and  in  Pennsylvania  490  persons  were 
likewise  attainted  by  a  similar  process.  Thousands  of  the  exiles 
went  to  England,  the  West  Indies,  the  Bermudas,  the  Bahamas. 
Nova  Scotia,  and  New  Brunswick,  and  in  most  cases  their  lot  was 
a  hard  one.  Attainted  of  treason  and  debarred  from  returning  to 
their  homes,  they  were  compelled  to  start  life  anew.35 

While  the  fate  of  these  unhappy  people  must  excite  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  historian,  it  must  be  admitted  that  to  their  own  con- 
duct is  to  be  largely  attributed  the  severity  of  the  policy  adopted 
by  the  State  legislatures  toward  them.  Their  opposition  to  the 
American  cause  was  not  merely  passive.  They  not  only  took  up 
arms  against  their  patriot  brethren,  but  what  was  worse  still,  they 
joined  the  Indians  in  devastating  the  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
frontiers  and  became  actual  participants  in  several  massacres  of 
their  fellow-inhabitants.  The  most  atrocious  of  these  massacres 
occurred  on  July  4,  1778,  in  the  beautiful  Wyoming  Valley,  where 
Colonel  John  Butler,  with  some  800  Tories  and  Indians,  suddenly 
fell  upon  a  peaceful  village,  easily  defeated  the  small  force  gathered 
for  its  defense,  and  put  to  death  over  200  of  its  inhabitants.  The 
survivors  fled  to  the  mountains,  leaving  the  valley  practically  de- 
serted.    The  Tories  attributed  the  slaughter  of  the  inhabitants  to 


popular  hatred  of  Tories  is  shown  by  the  following  definition  which  appeared 
in  the  public  prints  of  the  time:  "  A  Tory  is  a  thing  whose  head  is  in  England. 
whose  body  is  in  America,  and  whose  neck  ought  to  be  stretched." 

34  Sabine,  "Loyalists  of  the  Revolution,"  pp.  78-81. 

35  For  a  good  account  of  the  experience  of  a  prominent  Loyalist  in  exile  see 
Hosmer.  "  Life  of  Thomas  Hutchinson,"  ch.  xiv. 


WAR     IN     SOUTHERN     COLONIES        297 

1783 

the  Indians,  but  the  colonists  held  them  no  less  responsible  for  em- 
ploying savages  in  civilized  warfare.  In  the  following  year  a  some- 
what similar  occurrence  took  place  at  Cherry  Valley,  Otsego 
County,  New  York,  in  the  course  of  which  over  thirty  persons,  most 
of  them  women  and  children,  were  massacred  by  a  band  of  Tories 
under  the  command  of  Walter  Butler,  son  of  John  Butler,  and  the 
noted  Mohawk  chieftain,  Joseph  Brant. 

The  British  Government  felt  under  an  obligation  to  provide 
for  those  who  had  sacrificed  so  much  for  the  sake  of  the  king,  but 
as  has  been  said,  it  was  practically  forced  to  abandon  them  in  the 
treaty  of  peace.  After  the  war,  however,  many  of  them  were 
given  lands  in  Canada,  and  several  million  dollars  were  expended 
in  establishing  settlements  for  their  benefit.  Some  were  given 
offices  and  a  few  were  granted  pensions.  In  1782  a  Parliamentary 
committee  was  appointed  to  investigate  their  claims  for  losses  sus- 
tained by  reason  of  their  adherence  to  the  British  cause.  After 
an  investigation  lasting  through  five  years,  the  committee  recom- 
mended the  payment  of  $19,000,000  in  settlement  of  all  claims. 
This  amount  was  appropriated,  which,  with  the  sums  expended  for 
estalishing  the  Loyalists  in  Nova  Scotia  and  Canada,  raised  the 
total  amount  expended  by  the  British  Government  on  account  of 
the  Loyalists  to  not  less  than  thirty  million  dollars.30 

36  Van  Tyne,  "The  Loyalists  in  the  American  Revolution,"  p.  303;  see  also 
Ellis,  "  The  Loyalists  and  Their  Fortunes,"  in  Winsor's  "  Nar.  and  Crit.  Hist.," 
vol.  vii.  pp.  211-212. 


Chapter  XIII 

TRANSITION    FROM    COLONIES    TO    STATES.       1781-1789 

I 

THE   ARTICLES   OF   CONFEDERATION 

BY  united  exertions  and  common  sacrifices  the  thirteen  col- 
onies had  at  last  achieved  their  independence  of  Great 
Britain,  and  had  concluded  with  her  an  honorable  treaty 
of  peace,  embodying  a  recognition  of  substantially  all  the  princi- 
ples for  which  they  had  fought  and  suffered.  The  war  had,  indeed, 
been  a  glorious  one  to  American  arms,  and  had  brought  out  in 
bold  relief  the  true  character  of  that  branch  of  the  English  race 
which  was  soon  to  build  a  new  nation  and  carry  it  forward  upon 
a  career  unexampled  in  the  history  of  the  world.  The  future  of 
this  new  nation,  if  the  great  opportunity  which  opened  before  it 
were  wisely  used,  was  now  abundantly  assured.  It  was,  however, 
destined  to  pass  through  a  period  of  severe  trial,  in  the  course  of 
which  many  of  the  wisest  and  strongest  men,  the  leaders  of  the 
Revolution,  together  with  those  destined  to  leadership  in  the  great 
work  of  reconstruction,  were  led  to  doubt  whether,  after  all,  their 
condition  had  been  bettered  by  separation  from  the  mother  country. 
The  peril  which  threatened  the  very  existence  of  the  United  States 
at  the  outset  was  the  lack  of  a  suitably  endowed,  efficient  central 
government  to  take  the  place  of  the  British  sovereignty  which 
had  been  superseded.  So  long  as  British  supremacy  remained  intact 
there  was  a  common  authority  to  which  each  colony  owed  allegiance 
—  an  authority  which  made  it  impossible  for  one  colony,  actuated 
by  motives  of  selfishness  or  of  particularism,  to  encroach  upon  the 
rights  of  another,  or  upon  their  common  welfare  as  determined  by 
the  general  consciousness  and  by  the  policy  and  opinions  of  the 
mother  country. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence,  although  the  result  of  con- 
certed action  upon  their  part,  left  the  thirteen  colonies  without  a 
common  and  acknowledged  superior.     So  far  as  any  constitutional 

298 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  299 

1781 

limitations  were  concerned,  each  State  was  virtually  an  independent 
nation,  free  to  follow  any  course  or  pursue  any  policy  it  might 
choose.  But  inasmuch  as  their  independence  of  Great  Britain  at  the 
time  of  the  Declaration  was  not  an  established  fact,  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war  for  the  actual  realization  of  what  as  yet  existed  only 
in  theory  made  necessary  common  action  and  deference,  if  not 
actual  submission  to,  a  common  authority.  Without  the  action  of 
some  central  organ  armies  could  never  have  been  raised,  equipped 
or  commanded,  and  the  aid  of  foreign  nations  could  never  have 
been  secured.  In  short,  the  improvization  of  a  central  government 
acting  for  all  the  colonies,  temporary  and  ill  adapted  though  it 
might  be,  seemed  indispensable  as  a  result  of  the  situation  created 
by  the  necessities  of  the  war  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
To  meet  this  situation  the  Continental  Congress  was  called  into 
existence  and,  until  peace  was  nearly  reached,  it  was  the  guiding 
authority  for  the  management  of  the  common  concerns  of  the 
colonies,  which  at  this  stage  included  few  matters  of  importance 
except  such  as  related  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war.  The  Con- 
gress thus  created  was  a  revolutionary  body  summoned  to  meet  a 
temporary  emergency,  but  the  force  of  events  soon  compelled  it  to 
assume,  so  far  as  it  could,  sovereign  powers  of  government,  and 
to  undertake  the  general  management  of  the  war.  Its  members 
were  chosen  by  the  legislatures  in  some  of  the  colonies,  in  others 
they  were  chosen  by  popular  conventions,  and  in  still  others  they 
were  selected  by  committees  of  correspondence  or  other  extra-legal 
bodies.  Each  colony  was  free  to  send  as  many  delegates  to  the 
Congress  as  it  saw  fit,  to  authorize  them  to  serve  for  such  period 
of  time  as  it  wished,  and  to  pay  them  for  their  services  or  not, 
as  it  seemed  best.  The  delegates  represented  colonies  or  States, 
and  voted  as  States,  and  not  as  individuals.  There  being  no  writ- 
ten constitution  or  agreement  among  the  States,  the  powers  of  this 
extraordinary  assembly  were  of  course  wholly  undefined,  and  its 
acts  were  without  sanction  or  means  of  enforcement.1  The  Con- 
gress accordingly  exercised  such  authority  as  was  deemed  necessary 
to  the  successful  conduct  of  the  war,  and  which  it  was  believed 
would  meet  the  approval  of  the  people  of  the  colonies.  The  only 
measure  of  its  powers,  therefore,  was  to  be  found  in  the  voluntary 
assent  of  the  several  States  and  general  popular  acquiescence,  limi- 
tations which  the  Congress  kept  steadily  in  mind  in  all  its  delibera- 
1  Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  iv. 


800  T  HE     UNITED     STATES 

1781 

tions.  A  body  whose  powers  were  thus  undefined  by  any  written 
instrument,  whose  composition  was  lacking  in  uniformity,  whose 
decrees  had  no  binding  force,  which  dealt  only  with  States 
and  touched  no  individual  citizen,  and  whose  organization  was 
unicameral  in  character,  was  obviously  unfitted,  not  only  for  the 
general  purposes  of  government,  but  even  for  legislation  itself. 
No  attempt  was  made  to  apply  the  modern  principle  of  the  separa- 
tion of  governmental  powers  by  providing  distinct  organs  for  the 
exercise  of  executive  and  judicial  functions,  but  reliance  was  placed 
upon  boards  and  committees  for  administrative  purposes  and  upon 
the  State  courts  for  the  judicial  enforcement  of  its  commands. 

Notwithstanding  the  general  unfitness  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress as  an  organ  of  government,  its  services  in  bringing  about 
the  independence  of  the  colonies  were,  as  already  stated,  indis- 
pensable. It  raised,  organized  and  supported  the  army,  it  adopted 
a  declaration  of  independence,  it  established  a  committee  of  cor- 
respondence and  maintained  diplomatic  relations  with  foreign  coun- 
tries, it  assumed  control  of  Indian  affairs,  it  established  a  postal 
system,  it  undertook  the  settlement  of  boundary  disputes  among  the 
colonies,  it  issued  a  national  paper  currency  and  negotiated  loans, 
and  performed  many  other  duties  of  government  which  properly 
belonged  only  to  a  central  authority.2  But  the  objections  to  a 
scheme  of  government  whose  powers  were  wholly  undefined  and 
unsupported  by  any  sanction  or  means  of  enforcing  its  decrees, 
which  in  short  rested  only  on  a  revolutionary  basis  and  was  as 
inefficient  as  it  was  revolutionary,  were  too  obvious  to  be  ignored, 
and  the  war  had  barely  entered  upon  the  second  year  of  its 
progress  when  the  necessity  for  a  change  had  become  apparent  to 
all.  On  June  it,  1776,  the  same  day  on  which  Congress  chose  a 
committee  to  draft  a  declaration  of  independence,  a  committee  was 
also  appointed  to  prepare  a  constitution  of  government.  It  was 
clearly  foreseen  that  the  creation  of  an  efficient  general  government 
ought  to  follow  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  otherwise  the 
purposes  for  which  the  separation  from  Great  Britain  was  desired 
would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  of  realization.  In  short,  inde- 
pendence without  government  and  union  would  be  worthless.  In 
the  second  week  of  July  the  committee  finished  its  labors  and  made 
a  report,  John  Dickinson  being  the  supposed  author.     The  report 

-  See  an  article  on  the  Continental  Congress  by  Herbert  Friedenwald  in  the 
Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1894,  P-  227- 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  301 

1781 

embodied  a  plan  of  government  entitled  "  Articles  of  Confederation 
and  Perpetual  Union,"  but  unlike  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
it  was  destined  to  be  the  subject  of  debate  for  a  year  and  a  half, 
and  was  not  to  be  put  into  operation  until  the  expiration  of  nearly 
five  years.  In  the  meantime  the  Continental  Congress  continued  to 
direct  the  common  affairs  of  the  country,  and  to  exercise  such 
powers  as  the  acquiescence  of  the  States  permitted.  As  the  plan 
recommended  by  the  committee  proposed  to  limit  in  some  measure 
the  powers  of  the  individual  States,  it  provoked  strong  opposition  in 
Congress.  At  this  time  most  of  the  States,  acting  upon  the  advice 
of  the  second  Continental  Congress  in  1775,  had  adopted  constitu- 
tions and  set  up  governments  of  their  own,  and  were  therefore 
loath  to  surrender  their  sovereign  rights  to  an  outside  authority. 
There  were  also  very  grave  difficulties  of  detail,  such  as  whether 
each  State  should  be  allowed  one  vote  in  Congress,  according  to  the 
existing  plan,  or  whether  it  should  have  a  number  of  votes,  pro- 
portioned according  to  its  population ;  difficulties  also  as  to  the  mat- 
ter of  assessing*  and  raising  revenue,  the  apportionment  of  powers 
between  the  general  government  and  the  States,  the  settlement  of 
disputes  among  the  States,  and  many  others.  Finally,  on  Novem- 
ber 15,  1777,  the  proposed  Articles  were  adopted  by  Congress,  and 
were  then  sent  to  the  States  for  ratification  by  their  respective  legis- 
latures.3 

Accompanying  the  Articles  was  a  circular  letter  prepared  by 
Congress,  recommending  the  acceptance  of  the  scheme  as  the  only 
plan  likely  of  adoption.  In  little  more  than  a  year  the  Articles 
were  ratified  by  all  the  States  except  Maryland,  which  refused  to 
give  its  adhesion  until  the  States  laying  claim  to  lands  northwest  of 
the  Ohio  should  promise  to  surrender  their  claims  for  the  benefit  of 
the  nation.  Maryland  had  no  claim  to  western  land,  while  her 
nearest  neighbor,  Virginia,  laid  claim  to  an  immense  region  in  the 
west,  which  would  make  her  by  far  the  most  powerful  State  of 
the  Confederation,  and  many  times  greater  in  area  than  her 
less  powerful  neighbor.  A  Confederation  of  such  grossly  unequal 
States,  argued  the  Marylanders,  was  out  of  the  question.  The 
proceeds  from  the  sale  of  Virginia's  western  lands  would  in  time 
be  sufficient  to  defray  the  expenses  of  her  government,  and  her 
citizens  thus  relieved  of  the  burdens  of  taxation.  Besides,  the 
wealth  and  influence  of  Virginia  would  give  her  the  balance  of 
3  Van  Tyne,   "  The  American   Revolution,"  ch.   xi. 


302  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781 

power  in  the  Confederation,  and  make  it  possible  for  her  to  tyran- 
nize over  her  neighbors.  Finally,  it  was  said  that  the  western 
lands  had  been  acquired  by  conquest  from  Great  Britain  in  a  com- 
mon war  waged  by  all  the  colonies  united,  and  should,  therefore, 
be  reserved  for  the  common  benefit  of  all.  The  States  claiming 
western  lands  came  to  appreciate  the  justice  of  these  arguments, 
and  made  ready  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  their  less  favored 
sisters.  New  York  and  Virginia  agreed  to  cede  their  claims  to 
the  United  States,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  promise  Maryland 
came  forward  and  ratified  the  Articles  in  March,  1781.4 

Tested  by  the  principles  of  sound  political  science,  the  scheme 
of  government  provided  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  so 
tardily  accepted,  was  one  of  the  most  inefficient  in  the  whole  range 
of  history,  and  after  a  few  bitter  years,  during  which  the  country 
gradually  drifted  toward  anarchy,  escape  from  its  evils  was  effected 
only  by  what  were  practically  revolutionary  methods.  According 
to  the  language  of  the  Articles  the  thirteen  States  entered  into  a 
perpetual  league  of  friendship  with  each  other  for  common  defense 
and  general  welfare,  and  it  was  expressly  declared  that  each  State 
retained  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  and  every 
power  not  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled.  The  Union  thus  created  was  not  a  federal  State, 
Bundesstaat,  as  the  Germans  say,  with  sovereignty  in  the  nation, 
but  a  confederation  or  Staatenbund,  the  sovereignty  remaining  in 
the  individual  States.  Experience  has  taught  that  this  latter  form 
of  government  is  one  of  the  most  inefficient  of  all  forms,  and  it 
has  been  abandoned  by  nearly  every  civilized  nation  that  has  tried 
it.  But  a  hundred  years  ago,  when  the  sentiment  of  particularism 
was  much  stronger  than  now,  it  was  cherished  as  the  safest  and 
also  as  being  the  most  consonant  with  the  liberties  of  the  people. 
By  the  Articles  of  Confederation  a  sort  of  general  citizenship  was 
created,  it  being  provided  that  the  free  inhabitants  of  each  State 
should  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens 
in  the  different  States.  It  was  moreover  required  that  full  faith 
and  credit  should  be  given  in  each  State  to  the  judicial  records  and 
proceedings  of  every  other  State,  and  that  fugitives  from  justice, 
as  well  as  runaway  slaves  escaping  from  one  State  to  another, 
should,  upon  demand,  be  returned  to  the  State  from  which  they  had 
escaped. 

4  Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  90-94. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  803 

1781 

But  it  was  in  the  organization  of  government  that  the  most 
glaring  defects  of  the  Articles  appeared.  The  legislative  power  of 
the  Confederation  was  vested  in  a  Congress  composed  of  at  least 
two  and  not  more  than  seven  delegates  appointed  annually  by  each 
State.  No  delegates  could  serve  more  than  three  years  in  six,  they 
were  paid  by  the  States  which  they  represented,  were  subject  to  in- 
structions, and  could  be  recalled  at  the  will  of  the  States.  Ignoring 
all  differences  between  the  States,  the  Articles  provided  that  each 
should  have  one  vote  in  Congress,  regardless  of  its  population  or 
wealth,  the  vote  to  be  cast  by  a  majority  of  the  State's  delegates.5 

Disregarding  also  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  em- 
ployment of  the  check  and  balance  principle  in  legislative  procedure, 
the  Articles  provided  for  a  single  chamber,  which  was  better  adapted 
perhaps  for  administrative  purposes  than  for  legislation,  and  was 
very  bad  and  ineffective  in  both  directions.  In  the  apportionment 
of  power  between  the  United  States  on  the  one  hand  and  the  States 
on  the  other,  the  Articles  exhibited  the  prevailing  fear  of  the  cen- 
tral government.  To  the  Congress  was  given  the  sole  and  exclusive 
power  to  declare  war  and  to  make  peace,  to  send  and  receive  am- 
bassadors, to  make  treaties,  to  settle  disputes  between  the  States, 
to  establish  rules  for  the  disposition  of  captures  and  prizes  in  war, 
to  establish  courts  of  appeal  in  cases  of  capture,  to  regulate  the  value 
of  all  coin  struck  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State,  to  regulate 
trade  with  the  Indian  tribes,  to  establish  post  offices,  to  appoint  all 
officers  of  the  army  above  the  rank  of  colonel,  to  appoint  all  naval 
officers,  to  make  rules  for  the  government  of  land  and  naval  forces, 
to  fix  the  standard  of  weight  and  measures,  and  to  borrow  money. 

No  State,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  could  send  or  re- 
ceive ambassadors,  make  treaties,  lay  duties  or  imposts  which  would 
interfere  with  any  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
powers,  or  keep  troops  or  vessels  of  war  in  time  of  peace,  or  engage 
in  war.  An  almost  fatal  defect  in  the  Articles  was  the  provision 
which  required  an  extraordinary  majority  for  the  enactment  of  all 
important  measures  of  legislation.  Thus  the  consent  of  nine  States 
was  required  to  pass  any  measure  for  engaging  in  war,  to  granting 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  to  make  treaties,  to  coin  money  or 
regulate  the  value  thereof,  to  emit  bills  of  credit,  to  borrow  or 
appropriate  money,  to  establish  a  navy,  to  raise  land  forces,  or  to 

5  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  130- 

132. 


304  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781 

appoint  a  commander-in-chief.  As  the  total  number  of  States  was 
but  thirteen,  it  followed  that  the  most  important  measures  of  gov- 
ernment could  be  defeated  by  any  five  States.  On  account  of  the 
frequent  non-attendance  of  members  from  some  of  the  States,  and 
the  jealousy  of  others,  it  often  happened  that  sorely  needed  meas- 
ures were  defeated  by  an  insignificant  minority.6 

As  for  the  executive  department,  there  was  none.  True,  there 
was  a  President  of  Congress,  who  enjoyed  a  certain  precedence  over 
other  officials,  and  represented  in  a  way  the  dignity  of  the  United 
States;  but  he  was  in  reality  only  a  moderator  or  speaker,  not 
an  executive  officer  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws, 
and  in  fact  had  no  more  executive  power  than  any  other  member 
of  Congress.  Congress  was  thus  both  executive  and  legislative.  If 
the  mails  were  robbed  or  the  currency  counterfeited,  the  United 
States  must  depend  upon  the  States  for  the  punishment  of  the 
offenders.  With  the  exception  of  a  short-lived  tribunal  of  appeal 
for  hearing  and  determining  prize  cases,  there  was  no  national 
judiciary  and  consequently  the  United  States  was  dependent  upon 
the  State  courts  for  the  interpretation  and  enforcement  of  its 
statutes. 

If  the  State  courts  were  friendly  the  national  authority  was 
upheld  and  respected ;  otherwise  it  was  disregarded,  as  only  too  fre- 
quently happened.  The  lack  of  a  national  executive  and  judiciary 
machinery  contributed  immensely  to  the  inefficiency  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  was  one  of  the  causes  of  its  ultimate:  downfall.7 

But  perhaps  the  most  serious  defect  in  the  scheme  of  govern- 
ment embodied  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  was  the  lack  of 
the  two  essential  powers  of  laying  and  collecting  taxes,  and  of 
regulating  trade  among  the  States  and  with  foreign  nations.  Not  ;. 
word  was  said  in  the  Articles  with  regard  to  the  power  of  Con- 
gress to  lay  and  collect  taxes.  In  the  controversy  with  Great 
Britain  the  colonies  had  contended  that  the  right  of  taxation  be- 
longed exclusively  to  their  legislative  assemblies,  and  when  they 
came  to  form  a  national  government,  after  the  Revolution,  they 
still  exhibited  the  same  jealousy  of  surrendering  any  part  of  that 
power.  The  collectic.i  of  taxes  remained,  therefore,  with  the 
States,  Congress  having  only  the  right  to  determine  upon  the  sums 
needed  and  then  to  apportion  the  amount  among  the  States  for 

"  Winsor,  "  Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,"  vol.  vii.  p.  217. 
7  Curtis,  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  99-101. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  305 

1781 

collection  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  real  estate  in  each.  If  any 
State  refused  to  collect  and  pay  into  the  national  treasury  the  quota 
assigned  to  it,  Congress  was  powerless.  It  had  neither  constitu- 
tional nor  physical  power  to  coerce  a  delinquent  or  recalcitrant 
State  into  fulfilling  its  obligations  to  the  Union;  nor  had  it  the  neces- 
sary legal  means  to  collect  the  tax  itself.  In  fact,  the  whole  theory 
underlying  the  Articles  of  Confederation  was  that  the  power  of  the 
national  government  should  be  limited  to  dealing  with  the  States 
and  not  with  individuals,  which  of  itself  was  fatal  to  the  entire 
scheme.  In  practice  such  a  system  is  impossible,  since  refractory 
States  cannot  be  dealt  with  in  the  same  manner  as  refractory  in- 
dividuals. Such  an  individual  can  be  arrested  and  imprisoned  and 
thus  forced  to  fulfill  his  public  obligations,  but  the  coercion  of  a 
State  is  a  far  more  serious  undertaking.  If  it  had  been  tried  in 
1 78 1,  it  is  almost  certain  that  a  rebellion  would  have  been  stirred 
up,  and  the  feeble  Union  would  have  been  speedily  dissolved.  The 
only  resource  was  moral  suasion  and  appeals  to  the  pride  of  the 
States  —  an  alternative  which  generally  proved  ineffective,  leaving 
the  government  paralyzed  for  lack  of  revenues  to  pay  current 
expenses  of  administration  and  to  meet  its  obligations  to  creditors. 
It  is  doubtful  if  there  is  another  instance  in  history  of  a  government 
so  poorly  endowed  with  the  means  of  support  and  whose  struggles 
to  replenish  its  treasury  in  a  time  of  peace  were  marked  by  so 
much  of  imbecility,  if  not  of  actual  pathos. 

Likewise,  the  power  of  the  government  over  its  means  of  de- 
fense depended  upon  the  will  of  the  individual  States.  Congress,  to 
be  sure,  was  empowered  to  fix  the  quotas  of  men  which  each  State 
should  furnish,  but  it  had  no  power  to  compel  obedience,  and  the 
States  complied  with  the  request  of  Congress  for  recruits  if  they 
sympathized  with  the  purposes  for  which  the  army  was  wanted,  or 
refused  to  comply  if  they  happened  to  disapprove.  The  refusal  to 
vest  Congress  with  the  regulation  of  foreign  and  interstate  com- 
merce, as  we  shall  see,  led  to  incessant  quarrels  and  commercial 
retaliations  among  the  States,  and  made  it  impossible  to  present  a 
united  front  to  foreign  countries  in  respect  to  commerce.  They 
levied  duties  upon  imports  and  exports,  each  according  to  its  own 
selfish  views  of  its  local  interests,  without  any  regard  to  the  general 
welfare.  Moreover,  they  shared  with  Congress  the  right  of  coin- 
ing money,  of  emitting  bills  of  credit,  and  of  making  their  notes 
a  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts.8 

8  McLaughlin,  "  The  Confederation  and  the  Constitution,"  pp.  48-52. 


306  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1789 

II 
FAILURE  OF  THE  CONFEDERATION 

Such  was  the  nature  of  the  Confederation  and  the  constitution 
of  government  under  which  the  new  nation  entered  upon  its  career 
of  independence,  and  under  which  it  was  soon  drifting  toward 
dissolution.  As  has  been  well  said,  the  Confederation  was  merely 
a  league  of  friendship,  while  the  government  was  so  organized  as  tc 
produce  a  minimum  of  result  with  a  maximum  of  effort.  But  what 
was  worse  than  all,  the  Articles  could  not  be  altered  without  the 
consent  of  every  State  —  a  fact  which  made  its  displacement  pos- 
sible only  through  revolutionary  methods.9  The  new  government 
had  barely  gone  into  operation  before  its  inherent  weaknesses 
were  discovered.  The  first  trouble  came  with  the  army,  on  account 
of  the  failure  of  Congress  to  fulfill  its  obligations  to  the  poorly  clad, 
half  starved  soldiers.  As  early  as  1778,  yielding  to  the  strong 
appeals  of  General  Washington,  Congress  had  voted  half  pay  for 
life  to  the  officers,  and  provision  had  been  made  for  bounty  lands  for 
the  men.  During  the  ensuing  years  the  measure  for  the  payment 
of  the  officers  was  repealed,  and  as  a  result  the  army  began  to 
show  signs  of  impatience  and  discontent.  In  January,  1781,  before 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  had  yet  gone  into  effect,  there  had 
occurred  an  ugly  mutiny  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  troops, 
which  for  a  time  it  was  feared  would  prove  serious. 

Again,  early  in  1782,  many  of  the  officers  became  discouraged 
at  the  meager  prospect  of  receiving  their  pay,  and  disgusted  with  the 
imbecility  of  Congress,  began  to  entertain  the  idea,  whether  seri- 
ously or  not  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain,  of  making  Washington  king. 
One  of  the  officers.  Colonel  Nicola,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  com- 
mander-in-chief, setting  forth  the  almost  anarchical  condition  of  the 
country  resulting  from  the  weakness  of  Congress,  and  inviting 
him,  in  the  name  of  the  army,  to  come  forward,  assume  dictator- 
ship, and  put  an  end  to  the  troubles.  But  Washington  repelled 
the  suggestion  as  totally  abhorrent  to  his  sense  of  patriotism,  and 

9  For  an  illuminating  discussion  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  their 
inefficiency  cs  a  constitution  of  government,  see  George  Ticknor  Curtis,  "  Con- 
stitutional History,"  vol.  i.  chs.  iv-vi.,  and  Joseph  Story,  ''Commentaries  on 
the  Constitution,"  vol.  i.  book  iii.  ch.  iv.  For  a  more  popular  account,  see  John 
Fiske,  "  The  Critical  Period,"  chs.  iii.-iv. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  307 

1781-1789 

one  which  he  could  not  for  an  instant  entertain.10  The  incident,  al- 
though without  result,  was  clearly  symptomatic  of  the  general  dis- 
content and  confusion.  A  year  later  the  dissatisfaction  in  the  army 
came  near  resulting  in  a  serious  outbreak,  which  was  only  averted 
by  the  tact  and  firmness  of  Washington.  An  inflammatory  address 
to  the  army  having  been  issued  by  a  disaffected  officer  at  New- 
burgh,  calling  a  meeting  for  the  discussion  of  grievances  and  the 
formulation  of  a  plan  of  action  by  which  their  rights  could  be 
secured  —  a  plan  which  seems  to  have  contemplated  the  intimida- 
tion or  overthrow  of  Congress  and  the  coercion  of  the  delinquent 
States  into  the  payment  of  their  quotas,  —  Washington  seized  the 
initiative,  attended  the  meeting  and  made  an  eloquent  and  sym- 
pathetic appeal  to  the  soldiers  to  abstain  from  further  action,  and 
to  continue  their  faith  in  Congress.  His  appeal  was  successful,  the 
threatened  outbreak  was  prevented,  and  a  resolution  of  confidence 
in  Congress  was  adopted  by  the  officers.  Washington  thereupon 
appealed  to  Congress  to  make  provision  for  the  just  payment  of  the 
officers,  his  advice  was  promptly  followed,  and  an  act  was  passed 
commuting  half  pay  for  life  into  a  lump  sum  equal  to  five  years'  full 
pay  to  be  paid  at  once  in  six  per  cent,  certificates  of  indebtedness. 
This  tardy  recognition  and  settlement  of  a  long-standing  claim 
did  not,  however,  entirely  end  the  troubles  with  the  army.  In  June, 
1783,  two  months  after  the  virtual  disbandment  of  the  army,  a 
band  of  mutinous  soldiers,  some  of  whom  were  drunk,  while  all 
were  riotous  and  excited  on  account  of  the  failure  of  Congress  to 
treat  them  justly,  marched  to  Philadelphia,  surrounded  the  meeting 
place  of  Congress,  taunted  and  insulted  the  members  and  threatened 
to  seize  them  or  make  a  raid  upon  the  federal  treasury  if  their  de- 
mands were  not  answered  favorably.  Nothing  showed  more  clearly 
the  impotence  of  the  government  so  far  as  its  power  to  maintain 
peace  and  order  was  concerned  than  this  disgraceful  incident. 
Congress  was  powerless  to  disperse  the  disorderly  mob  or  to  arrest 
those  who  composed  it,  and  accordingly  an  appeal  was  made  to  the 
State  government  of  Pennsylvania  for  protection ;  but  the  governor 
of  the  State  feared  to  call  out  the  local  militia  lest  they  might  take 
sides  with  the  mutinous  soldiers.  In  this  situation  Congress  yielded 
to  the  intimidation  of  the  rioters,  fled  from  the  city  and  took  up 
its  official  residence  at  Princeton,  safe  from  the  jeers  and  insults 
of  the  drunken  mutineers.  To  all  thoughtful  men  the  affair  ap- 
10  Lodge,  "  George  Washington,"  vol.  i.  pp.  337~33^- 


308  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1789 

peared  far  more  serious  than  ludicrous,  for  it  revealed  too  plainly 
the  weakness  of  the  government  and  the  disordered  condition  into 
which  the  country  was  drifting.  Such  a  government  neither  mer- 
ited nor  could  command  respect  at  home  or  abroad.11 

The  government  was  likewise  unable  to  fulfill  its  treaty  obliga- 
tions with  foreign  countries  on  account  of  the  large  autonomy 
left  with  the  States.  By  the  Treaty  of  1783  with  Great  Britain,  the 
United  States  had  solemnly  agreed  to  recommend  to  the  State  gov- 
ernments that  they  repeal  all  laws  which  had  been  enacted  from  time 
to  time  for  the  persecution  of  the  Tories  and  the  confiscation  of 
their  estates,  and  it  was  further  stipulated  that  all  debts  due  from 
Americans  to  British  creditors  should  be  discharged  at  their  full 
value  in  sterling  money,  without  the  interposition  of  any  lawful 
impediment  upon  the  part  of  any  State.  In  pursuance  of  the  treaty 
Congress  appealed  to  the  States  to  desist  from  further  persecu- 
tion of  the  Tories,  but  the  recommendation  went  unheeded.  The 
hard  lot  of  these  unfortunate  people  has  already  been  recounted 
in  a  previous  chapter.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  here  that  many  were 
banished  from  the  country,  others  fled  of  their  own  accord,  while 
still  others  remained  and  endured  as  best  they  could  the  hardships 
to  which  they  were  subjected.  Besides  disfranchisement,  imprison- 
ment and  social  ostracism,  their  estates  were  confiscated,  and  they 
were  denied  all  means  of  recovering  them.  Upon  the  conclusion 
of  peace,  instead  of  milder  treatment,  the  severity  of  the  legislation 
against  the  Tories  seemed  to  increase.  Between  1783  and  1785  it 
was  estimated  that  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  left  the  United 
States,  those  in  the  northern  States  going  mostly  to  Canada,  while 
those  from  the  south  went  to  Florida  and  the  British  West  Indies. 
Those  who  remained  soon  became  the  object  of  social  persecution 
and  victims  of  the  most  unfriendly  legislation.12 

One  of  the  most  noteworthy  of  these  laws  was  the  New  York 
Trespass  Act,  by  which  all  persons  who  had  abandoned  their  homes 
on  account  of  the  presence  of  the  British  troops  were  empowered 
to  recover  damages  in  an  action  of  trespass  against  such  persons 
as  took  possession  of  the  abandoned  estates,  and  no  military  order 
could  be  pleaded  in  justification  of  the  occupation.     Nearly  every 

11  McMaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp. 
181-185. 

12  See  Fiske,  "  Critical  Period  of  American  History,"  chs.  iii.-iv. ;  also 
Hart,  "  Formation  of  the  Union,"  ch.  v. ;  and  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People 
of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  ii. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  309 

1781-1789 

Whig  owner  whose  house  had  been  occupied  by  a  Tory,  however 
short  the  time,  instituted  an  action  of  trespass  for  damages.  As 
most  of  the  estates  on  Manhattan  Island  had  at  one  time  or  another 
during  the  Revolution  been  thus  occupied,  it  may  ready  be  seen 
what  a  state  of  confusion  would  have  resulted  from  such  a  policy. 
Accordingly  a  test  case  was  made  up  —  the  famous  case  of  Rutgers 
v.  Waddington,  in  which  the  constitutionality  of  the  Trespass  Act 
was  tried. 

In  this  case  Elizabeth  Rutgers  sued  Joshua  Waddington,  a 
Tory  merchant,  for  trespassing  upon  her  premises  during  the  war, 
and  although  public  sympathy  was  largely  with  the  act,  the  court 
held  that  it  contravened  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain,  as  well  as  the  law  of  nations,  and  was  therefore  void. 
The  case  is  further  interesting  from  the  fact  that  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton, but  a  few  years  before  a  waif  from  the  West  Indies,  but  now 
a  distinguished  soldier,  a  rising  statesman,  and  a  powerful  advocate, 
although  only  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  appeared  as  counsel  for 
the  Tory  defendant.  It  was  an  unpopular  act  to  defend  a  Tory, 
and  Hamilton  was  roundly  abused  for  his  course,  but  he  firmly 
believed  that  he  was  in  the  right,  and  he  had  the  courage  to  follow 
his  convictions.13 

Gradually  such  evidences  of  bitter  hatred  of  the  Tories  wore 
away ;  social  ostracism  became  less  general,  and  confiscating  acts  in 
most  States  were  repealed.  So  far  as  the  Tories  were  concerned 
Congress  had  complied  with  the  letter  of  the  treaty  when  it  recom- 
mended to  the  States  to  cease  their  persecution;  but  with  regard 
to  the  debts  due  British  merchants,  its  obligations  were  not  merely 
advisory.  If  unlawful  impediments  were  placed  in  the  way  of  the 
collection  of  the  debts  the  United  States  could  not  rightfully  plead 
that  its  power  was  only  recommendatory,  and  yet  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  five  of  the  thirteen  States  passed  acts  for  the  total  or  partial 
confiscation  of  the  debts,  the  action  of  two  of  them  taking  place 
after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty.  Although  the  United  States 
had  stipulated  that  this  should  not  be  done,  it  was  found  impossible 
to  prevent  it,  since  Congress  lacked  the  requisite  power  to  enforce 
its  treaty  stipulations. 

This  failure  of  the  United  States  to  carry  out  its  treaty  stipula- 
tions left  Great  Britain  to  retaliate  by  refusing  to  fulfill  her  own 

13  McMaster,    "  History   of  the    People   of  the    United    States,"    vol.    i.   pp. 
125-127. 


310  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1789 

obligations,  and  for  this  reason  she  declined  to  withdraw  the  troops 
from  certain  posts  on  the  northern  and  western  frontiers  which  had 
been  surrendered  to  the  United  States  by  the  Treaty  of  1783.  In 
spite  of  this  stipulation  British  garrisons  continued  to  occupy  the 
posts  until  1796.  Moreover,  she  refused  to  make  compensation 
for  the  large  number  of  slaves  which  had  been  carried  away  by  the 
British  fleet  at  the  time  of  the  evacuation.  In  justification  of  this 
conduct  the  British  alleged  that  the  negroes  in  question  came  into 
their  lines  and  were  presumed  to  be  freemen  and  could  not  there- 
fore be  remanded  to  slavery. 

Besides  declining  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  treaty, 
Great  Britain  took  advantage  of  the  weakness  of  the  Union  and  the 
impotency  of  the  government  to  refuse  us  much  needed  commercial 
privileges,  and  at  the  same  time  to  interfere  materially  with  Amer- 
ican trade.  By  an  order  in  council  American  built  vessels  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  West  India  trade  —  an  act  which  seriously  crip- 
pled a  large  and  lucrative  commence  upon  which  thousands  of 
American  citizens  depended  for  a  livelihood.  Great  indignation  was 
aroused  in  America,  and  loud  threats  of  retaliation  were  made ;  but 
the  British  Government  knew  well  that  thirteen  States  could  never 
be  made  to  agree  upon  a  common  line  of  policy,  as  regards  com- 
mercial regulations,  while  separate  retaliation  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. Great  Britain,  therefore,  refused  to  modify  her  policy  and 
declined  to  enter  into  a  commercial  treaty  with  the  United  States. 
In  1785  John  Adams  was  sent  over  to  England  as  our  first  minister 
to  that  country,  and  he  labored  in  and  out  of  season  to  negotiate  a 
treaty,  but  without  avail.14 

Our  participation  in  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  was  restricted, 
while  American  markets  were  flooded  with  British  manufactured 
goods  upon  which  the  government  had  no  power  to  levy  import 
duties.  Great  Britain,  of  course,  was  not  anxious  to  conclude  a 
commercial  treaty,  since  she  enjoyed  all  the  privileges  which  she 
desired  without  a  treaty,  and  moreover  taunted  our  government  with 
being  powerless  to  enforce  its  treaties,  saying :  "  You  are  one 
nation  to-day  and  thirteen  to-morrow,  according  as  one  or  the  other 
best  subserves  your  selfish  interests."  Unfortunately  there  was  a 
large  measure  of  truth  in  the  taunt.  Meantime  Great  Britain  re- 
fused to  send  a  minister  to  the  United  States,  and  treated  the  new 
nation  as  unworthy  of  having  a  diplomatic  representative  ac- 
14  Fiske,   "  Critical   Period  of  American    History,"  pp.    138-141. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  311 

1781-1789 

credited  to  its  government.15  Eventually  some  of  the  States  were 
induced  to  pass  discriminating  navigation  acts  against  British  com- 
merce, imposing  duties  on  imports  brought  in  English  ships,  and 
prohibiting  English  vessels  from  carrying  goods  out  of  their  ports. 
Other  States,  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  gain  profit 
thereby,  threw  their  ports  open  to  British  ships  and  invited  com- 
mercial intercourse,  thus  making  it  impossible  for  the  country  as  a 
whole  to  present  a  united  front  to  Great  Britain  in  respect  to  com- 
mercial retaliation. 

What  was  needed  to  bring  England  to  terms  was,  above  all 
things,  a  uniform  navigation  act;  but  this  Congress  had  no  power 
to  pass ;  nor  would  the  States  consent  to  invest  it  with  such  power. 
In  1785  ten  States  yielded  to  the  demand  created  by  the  deplorable 
condition  of  affairs  and  granted  to  Congress  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce  with  foreign  nations  for  a  period  of  thirteen  years;  but 
Georgia,  South  Carolina  and  Delaware,  fearing  that  if  competition 
were  destroyed  the  New  England  States  would  obtain  a  monopoly 
of  the  carrying  trade  and  oppress  the  non-commercial  States  by 
charging  exorbitant  transportation  rates,  refused  to  surrender  their 
power  of  regulating  commerce.  As  it  required  the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  all  the  thirteen  States  to  amend  the  Articles  of  Confeder- 
ation, the  scheme  necessarily  fell  through,  and  the  almost  intolerable 
condition  of  affairs  continued  unchanged  until  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution  in  1789.  Trade  and  commerce  were  further 
deranged  by  the  petty  wars  of  retaliation  among  the  States  them- 
selves. Imposts  and  tonnage  duties  were  levied  upon  the  ships 
and  produce  of  neighboring  States  as  though  they  were  foreign 
nations,  each  trying  to  build  up  its  own  trade  at  the  expense  of  its 
neighbor;  Pennsylvania  levied  a  tax  on  produce  from  Delaware, 
while  New  Jersey  discriminated  against  by  both  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania  was  compared  by  Madison  to  a  cask  tapped  at  both 
ends.  Not  content  with  levying  a  tariff  on  the  produce  of  the  Jersey 
kitchen  gardens,  New  York  went  to  the  length  of  taxing  firewood 
brought  over  from  Connecticut.  Her  central  position  gave  her  an 
advantage  in  this  respect  over  her  less  favored  neighbors,  and  under 
the  influence  and  teachings  of  her  States  rights  governor,  George 
Clinton,  she  pursued  a  narrow  and  selfish  policy,  scarcely  equaled  in 

15  See  McLaughlin,  "The  Confederation  and  the  Constitution,"  chs.  v.-vi. ; 
Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xi. ;  McMaster, 
"  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  ch.  iii. 


312  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1789 

any  of  the  other  States.  But  New  Jersey,  better  favored  than  Con- 
necticut in  this  respect,  retaliated  upon  her  more  powerful  neigh- 
bor by  imposing-  an  annual  tax  of  $1,800  on  the  lighthouse  which 
New  York  had  recently  erected  at  Sandy  Hook  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  New  Jersey.16 

In  such  manner  the  States  quarreled  and  disputed.  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Connecticut  wrangled  over  the  title  to  the  Wyoming  Val- 
ley, and  after  the  dispute  was  settled  in  1782  by  a  special  tribunal 
constituted  in  accordance  with  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the 
Connecticut  settlers  were  so  maltreated  by  the  Pennsylvanians  that 
for  a  time  war  between  the  two  States  seemed  imminent.17  Like- 
wise New  Hampshire  and  New  York  nearly  came  to  blows  over  the 
disputed  territory  of  Vermont  and  long  after  a  sort  of  modus 
vivendi  had  been  patched  up  between  the  disputants  the  debatable 
territory  was  the  scene  of  disorders  at  times  approaching  border 
warfare.  These  incidents,  although  not  the  most  disgraceful  events 
of  the  time,  afforded  evidence,  if  such  were  needed,  of  the  progress 
toward  anarchy  under  the  existing  regime. 

Ill 

ON    THE   VERGE    OF   ANARCHY 

Of  far  greater  consequence  were  the  financial  and  economic 
disorders  of  the  time.  The  national  debt  was  over  $50,000,000 
and  Congress  could  not  raise  the  money  to  pay  either  principal  or 
interest;  indeed,  it  was  impossible  to  raise  enough  to  meet  the  cur- 
rent expenses  of  administration.  Each  State  had  its  own  war  debt, 
besides  the  burden  of  maintaining  its  own  government.  The  nation 
had  not  recovered  from  the  desolating  effects  of  the  war,  business 
was  deranged  and  the  people  were  poor.  The  States,  therefore, 
found  it  difficult  to  raise  more  than  was  needed  for  local  purposes 
and  Congress  had  to  be  content  with  what  it  could  get.  Strong  ap- 
peals were  sent  to  the  States  from  time  to  time,  but  the  responses 
were  few  and  the  small  amounts  granted  were  grudgingly  given. 
Of  the  $5,000,000  quota  assigned  to  the  States  for  the  year  1781, 
but  little  more  than  $400,000  had  been  paid  into  the  Confederate 

10  Fiske,  "  Critical  Period  of  American  History,"  p.  147. 
17  McMaster,   "  History   of   the    People    of   the   United    States,"    vol.   i.   pp. 
2 1 0-2l6. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  313 

1781-1789 

treasury  at  the  end  of  the  year,  none  of  which  came  from  Georgia, 
the  Carolinas  or  Delaware.  Of  the  amount  assessed  for  1783 
scarcely  any  had  been  paid  in  by  the  end  of  the  year.  From  1781 
to  1788  the  total  requisitions  made  upon  the  States  amounted  to 
about  $16,000,000.  Of  this  amount  not  more  than  $6,000,000  was 
paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  Confederation  and  but  little  more 
than  half  of  this  was  specie.  Some  of  the  States  flatly  refused 
to  contribute  anything,  and  there  was  no  way  of  compelling  them  to 
pay  a  dollar  of  their  quotas.18 

Ere  the  Articles  of  Confederation  had  gone  into  effect  Con- 
gress had  proposed  an  amendment  empowering  the  national  govern- 
ment to  levy  an  import  duty  of  five  per  cent,  on  goods  entering  the 
United  States,  the  proceeds  to  be  applied  to  the  discharge  of  the 
principal  and  interest  of  the  public  debt.  In  the  course  of  a  year 
twelve  States  with  more  or  less  reluctance  agreed  to  this  reasonable 
amendment,  but  Rhode  Island  stood  out  in  opposition  and  the  plan 
failed.  Again  in  1783  the  States  were  asked  to  allow  Congress  to 
levy  certain  specific  duties  on  imports  for  a  period  of  twenty-five 
years,  and  to  obviate  objections  raised  against  the  five  per  cent, 
scheme  of  1781  the  duties  were  to  be  collected  by  officers  appointed 
by  the  States.  The  result  was  as  before:  twelve  States  agreed  to 
the  amendment,  but  one  stood  out  and  defeated  it.  Every  attempt 
to  amend  and  improve  the  Articles  of  Confederation  resulted  in 
failure,  and  the  country  drifted  helplessly  on  toward  chaos.19 

As  a  consequence  of  the  inability  of  Congress  to  raise  money 
the  public  credit  of  the  government  was  so  low  that  a  loan  could 
not  be  effected.  Few  things  are  more  pathetic  in  our  history  than 
the  efforts  of  John  Adams,  minister  to  England,  to  raise  money 
with  which  to  meet  the  drafts  upon  him  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Finance.  He  first  applied  to  the  Dutch  Government  at  Amsterdam, 
but  being  refused  he  appealed  to  some  private  money  lenders,  from 
whom,  after  a  long  delay,  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  small  loan  at  a 
high  rate  of  interest.  It  is  no  surprise  that  money  lenders  hesitated 
to  trust  a  government  which  was  neither  respected  at  home  nor 
abroad,  and  had  no  control  over  the  sources  from  which  its  treasury 
was  replenished.  In  these  struggles  to  raise  money  and  establish 
public  credit,  one  man  stands  out  above  all  others,  and  is  entitled  to 
the  lasting  gratitude  of  his  countrymen.     This  was  Robert  Morris, 

18  See   Story,  "  Commentaries   on  the   Constitution,"  ch.   v. 

19  Hart,   "Formation   of  the   Union,"   pp.    109-111. 


314  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1781-1789 

a  wealthy  merchant  and  unselfish  patriot  of  Philadelphia,  who  had 
come  over  from  England  when  a  boy,  and  who,  as  already  stated, 
became  Superintendent  of  Finance  under  the  Confederation,  and 
shortly  thereafter  established  the  Bank  of  North  America  as  an 
agency  for  the  negotiation  of  loans.  For  three  years  this  patriotic 
man  struggled  hard  to  weather  the  storm,  but  in  1784  resigned  his 
office  to  a  board  of  finance,  and  be  it  said  to  the  discredit  of  his 
ungrateful  countrymen,  he  was  many  years  afterwards,  when  he 
had  failed  in  business,  allowed  to  languish  in  a  debtor's  prison.20 

The  condition  of  finances  and  of  business  generally  was  largely 
affected  by  the  economic  vagaries  of  the  time.  It  often  happens 
in  times  of  business  depression  that  people  are  seized  by  a  craze  for 
cheap  paper  money,  which  they  think  is  a  panacea  for  all  their  trou- 
bles. This  feeling  prevailed  during  the  period  from  1783  to  1786, 
and  it  led  to  increased  disorders  and  distress.  In  all  the  States, 
except  Connecticut  and  Delaware,  the  paper  money  craze  seized  the 
popular  mind,  and  in  seven  States  believers  in  cheap  money  con- 
trolled the  legislatures.  In  these  States  large  quantities  of  paper 
currency  were  issued  and  all  sorts  of  expedients  were  resorted  to 
to  get  it  into  circulation  at  its  face  value,  and  to  keep  it  on  a  par 
with  specie.  In  spite  of  all  efforts,  however,  it  declined  in  value  and 
the  people  refused  to  take  it  except  at  a  discount.  In  some  States 
ostracism  and  intimidation  were  resorted  to  in  order  to  compel  its 
acceptance,  and  in  others  laws  were  passed  for  the  punishment  of 
those  who  discriminated  against  it.  But  it  was  soon  discovered  that 
no  amount  of  intimidation  and  no  form  of  legislation  could  force 
people  to  accept  notes  at  more  than  their  real  value.21 

Hand  in  hand  with  its  depreciation  business  declined  and  the 
distress  of  the  people  increased.  As  always  happens  in  such  times, 
speculators  arose  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation.  Loss  of  con- 
fidence followed,  trade  declined,  debts  increased  and  general  busi- 
ness demoralization  prevailed.  Of  all  the  States  that  were  affected 
by  the  paper  currency  Rhode  Island  and  Massachusetts  suffered 
most.  Here,  indeed,  it  wrought  havoc,  and  in  Massachusetts  led 
to  a  dangerous  insurrection.  In  Rhode  Island  the  advocates  of 
paper  money  secured  control  of  the  legislature,  and  an  act  was 
passed  requiring  everyone  to  accept  paper  at  par  with  gold  under 

20  Oberholtzer,  "  Robert  Morris,   Patriot  and  Financier,"  pp.  348-454. 
-1  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  281- 
304 ;  Fiske,  "  Critical  Period,"  pp.  168-180. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  315 

1781-1789 

penalty  of  a  fine  of  five  hundred  dollars  and  disfranchisement. 
The  merchants  thereupon  closed  their  shops,  and  by  1786  busi- 
ness was  paralyzed.  The  farmers,  indignant  at  the  action  of  the 
merchants,  undertook  to  starve  them  into  submission,  and  either 
sent  their  produce  to  New  York  and  Connecticut  or  destroyed  it. 
Indignation  meetings  were  held  throughout  the  State,  and  riots 
occurred  in  a  number  of  places.  Finally,  like  the  Trespass  Act 
in  New  York,  the  act  to  enforce  the  acceptance  of  the  unlimited 
issuance  of  paper  money  was  resisted  in  the  courts  and  de- 
clared unconstitutional.  This  was  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Rhode  Island  in  the  noted  case  of  Trevett  v.  Weeden,  in 
which  a  butcher  refused  to  accept  paper  money  in  payment  for 
meat  except  at  a  large  discount  and  was  sued  for  violation  of  the 
act.  The  trial  was  attended  by  great  excitement,  and  after  the 
verdict  was  announced  a  special  session  of  the  legislature  was 
called  and  four  of  the  judges  who  had  opposed  the  law  failed  of 
reelection  to  the  bench.  This  case  deserves  to  be  remembered 
further  as  one  of  the  very  first  instances  in  which  the  courts 
enunciated  that  peculiar  doctrine  of  American  jurisprudence  that 
the  judges  are  not  bound  by  statutes  which  conflict  with  the  con- 
stitution. Presently  the  Force  Act  was  repealed,  but  not  until 
after  a  great  deal  of  harm  had  been  done  and  the  State  had  won 
the  unenviable  distinction  of  being  a  land  of  vagaries  and  the 
nickname  of  "  Rogue's  Island."  22 

In  Massachusetts  the  paper  currency  advocates  did  not  succeed 
in  getting  control  of  the  legislature,  but  the  business  depression 
and  distress  were  so  great  that  an  insurrection  broke  out  which  it 
taxed  the  resources  of  the  State  to  suppress.  Private  debts  in 
the  State  increased  enormously,  farms  were  mortgaged,  taxes  were 
high,  and  thousands  were  thrown  out  of  employment.  The  dis- 
tress was  especially  great  among  the  farmers,  who  were  led  to  at- 
tribute the  source  of  their  troubles  to  the  merchants  and  lawyers. 
A  sentiment  in  favor  of  wiping  out  all  debts  was  developed,  and 
a  movement  set  on  foot  for  the  issue  of  a  paper  currency.  The 
legislature  refused  to  enact  a  law  for  this  purpose  and  then  an 
outburst  of  popular  wrath  followed,  under  the  leadership  of  one 
Daniel  Shays,  an  old  captain  in  the  Continental  army.  The  mal- 
contents undertook  to  prevent  the  courts  from  sitting,  and  went 

22  McMaster,    "  History    of  the    People   of   the   United    States,"   vol.    i.    pp. 
330-338. 


316 


THE     UNITED     STATES 


1781-1789 


on  to  destroy  public  and  private  property  and  to  plunder  houses. 
Governor  Bowdoin  acted  promptly  and  energetically,  called  out 
the  militia,  placed  it  under  the  command  of  General  Lincoln,  and 
after  several  skirmishes,  in  which  a  few  lives  were  lost,  the  re- 


bellion was  put  down.  Fourteen  of  the  leaders  were  convicted  of 
treason  and  sentenced  to  death,  but  were  subsequently  pardoned 
by  Governor  Hancock.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  these  disturb- 
ances, which  extended  to  Vermont  and  New  Hampshire  as  well, 
the  government  of  the  Confederation  was  too  weak  to  interfere. 
At  one  time  a  requisition  was  made  for  troops  to  check  the  antici- 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  317 

1781-1789 

pated  spread  of  the  disorders,  but  Congress  was  too  timid  to  dis- 
close the  real  purpose  for  which  the  call  was  made,  declaring  that 
the  troops  were  wanted  for  an  expedition  against  the  western 
Indians.23 

Almost  the  last,  and  by  far  the  most  important,  piece  of  legis- 
lation enacted  by  Congress  under  the  Confederation,  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  1787  for  the  government  of  the  territory  northwest  of 
the  Ohio  River.  This  territory  had  been  claimed  by  the  States 
lying  directly  to  the  east,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  ceded 
to  the  United  States  to  overcome  the  objections  urged  by  Mary- 
land to  the  adoption  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The  terri- 
tory ceded  by  Massachusetts  constituted  a  considerable  portion 
of  what  is  now  Wisconsin  and  the  lower  part  of  Michigan.  That 
ceded  by  Connecticut  consisted  of  a  long,  narrow  strip  extending 
across  Northern  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  to  the  Mississippi 
River.  The  claims  of  both  these  States  rested  on  grants  of  their 
old  charters.  New  York  claimed  a  vast  undefined  area  in  the 
west  on  the  ground  of  cession  from  the  Iroquois  Indians,  who  had 
asserted  jurisdiction  over  it,  and  who  had  placed  themselves  under 
the  protection  of  New  York.  The  largest  cession  was  that  of 
Virginia,  whose  title  was  based  on  an  early  charter  and  also  on 
the  conquest  of  George  Rogers  Clark,  a  citizen  of  the  State,  who, 
acting  on  its  behalf,  conquered  the  territory  from  the  British  dur- 
ing the  Revolution. 

The  surrender  by  the  State  of  this  magnificent  domain  for 
the  common  benefit  of  the  nation  —  a  domain  to  which  Virginia 
had  a  clear  title,  has  been  pronounced  by  a  great  American  his- 
torian as  an  act  of  splendid  magnanimity.  It  certainly  was  an  act 
of  large  patriotism  and  far-seeing  wisdom,  deserving  of  the  highest 
praise.  Maryland's  persistence  in  forcing  the  cession  of  these 
western  lands  is  deserving  of  scarcely  less  commendation.  A  meas- 
ure of  approbation  should  also  be  accorded  New  York,  which  set 
the  ball  in  motion  by  offering,  early  in  1780,  to  cede  her  lands. 
Congress  hastened  the  movement  by  pledging  itself  that  the  pro- 
ceeds from  the  sale  of  the  land  should  be  applied  to  national 
purposes,  and  that  as  soon  as  practicable  the  territory  should  be 
formed  into  distinct  republican  States  to  be  admitted  to  the  Union 
on  an  equality  with  the  original  States.     Then  Connecticut  agreed 

23  See   an   article  by  J.   P.   .Warren,  American  Historical  Review,  vol.  xi. 
p.  42. 


318  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1781-1789 

to  cede;  Virginia  followed  in  January,  1781,  and  finally  Massa- 
chusetts surrendered  her  claim  in  April,  1784.  In  ceding  their 
claims  both  Connecticut  and  Virginia  reserved  certain  lands  for 
the  use  of  their  own  citizens;  Connecticut  retaining  some  3,000,000 
acres  for  school  purposes  in  the  northern  part  of  what  is  now 
Ohio,  and  still  known  as  the  "  Western  Reserve."  Virginia  re- 
tained a  tract  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  State,  as  bounty  lands 
for  her  Revolutionary  veterans.24  It  is  not  easy  to  over-estimate 
the  influence  of  these  cessions  on  the  future  development  of  the 
United  States.  They  made  possible  the  completion  of  the  Union 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  led  eventually  to  the 
creation  of  five  powerful  States  —  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michi- 
gan and  Wisconsin. 

Shortly  after  the  completion  of  the  cession  Congress  took 
up  the  matter  of  providing  a  government  for  the  Northwest  Terri- 
tory. Thomas  Jefferson,  a  member  from  Virginia,  who  was  to  be 
largely  instrumental  at  a  later  period  in  the  territorial  expansion 
of  the  United  States,  submitted  a  plan  for  the  government  of  the 
entire  Territory,  which  was  adopted,  but  which  never  went  into 
effect.  Jefferson  proposed  to  divide  the  Territory  into  ten  States 
bearing  the  names  Sylvania,  Michigania,  Chersonesus,  Assenisipia, 
Mesopotamia,  Illinoia,  Saratoga,  Washingtonia,  Polypotamia 
and  Pelesipia.  In  each  State  the  inhabitants  were  to  be  permitted 
to  establish  local  governments  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  and 
when  the  population  of  any  State  should  equal  any  one  of  the 
original  States,  it  should  be  admitted  to  the  Union  with  the  con- 
sent of  nine  States.  Jefferson  also  proposed  that  slavery  should 
be  forever  prohibited  there,  after  the  year  1800,  but  this  sugges- 
tion was  not  adopted. 

Meanwhile,  by  the  efforts  of  General  Rufus  Putnam,  the  Ohio 
Company  had  been  organized,  and  under  its  auspices  Marietta,  a 
flourishing  settlement,  was  growing  up  on  the  Ohio  River.  The 
movement  of  population  in  that  direction  made  it  highly  necessary 
that  provision  be  made  for  the  government  of  the  Territory,  and 
this  was  brought  about  by  the  celebrated  ordinance  of  1787,  pro- 
nounced by  Daniel  Webster  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  notable 
pieces  of  legislation  in  its  effects  in  ancient  or  modern  times.  The 
authorship  of  the  ordinance  is  disputed,  but  it  was  probably  the 
work  of  Rufus  Putnam  and  Manasseh  Cutler,  supported  in  Con- 

-4  Sec   Hinsdale,  "  The   Old   Northwest,"  ehs.   xii.,   xiii. 


COLONIES     TO     STATES  319 

1781-1789 

gress  by  Nathan  Dane  of  Massachusetts,  and  also  contained  some 
of  the  ideas  embodied  in  Jefferson's  proposed  ordinance  of  1784. 
but  happily  abandoned  his  names.25 

It  provided  a  constitution  of  government  and  a  bill  of  rights 
for  the  inhabitants.  Not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  five  States 
were  to  be  formed  from  the  Territory,  and  when  any  one  of 
these  should  have  a  population  of  60,000  inhabitants  it  was  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Union  on  an  equality  with  the  original  States. 
Until  then  the  Territory  was  to  be  governed  by  officials  appointed 
by  Congress.  These  were  to  be  a  governor,  a  secretary,  and 
three  judges;  the  governor  and  judges  being  empowered  to  adopt 
such  laws  in  force  in  the  old  States  as  were  suitable  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Territory.  As  soon  as  the  population  should 
reach  5.000  a  representative  legislature,  chosen  by  a  limited  suff- 
rage was  to  be  introduced.  Freedom  of  religious  worship 
was  to  be  allowed  and  no  religious  qualification  for  office  was 
to  be  required.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  and  the  privilege  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  were  to  be  a  part  of  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
Territory.  The  future  policy  of  the  Northwest  was  well  summed 
up  in  the  phrase  that  "  religion,  morality  and  knowledge  being 
necessary  to  good  government  and  the  happiness  of  mankind, 
schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall  be  forever  encouraged." 
But  the  most  important  provision  of  the  ordinance  was  that  which 
declared  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as 
a  punishment  for  crime,  should  be  permitted.26  This  dedicated  the 
great  Northwest  unreservedly  to  freedom  and  thus  affected  im- 
measurably the  future  history  of  the  nation.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  this  clause  was  unanimously  adopted  by  Congress,  nine  States 
being  represented,  the  southern  members  favoring  it  quite  as 
much  as  those  from  the  northern  States.  The  scheme  of  govern- 
ment was  put  in  operation  by  the  appointment  of  a  Revolutionary 
veteran,  General  Arthur  St.  Clair,  as  the  first  governor.  The  land 
was  surveyed  and  offered  for  sale  at  a  nominal  price;  immigrants 
flocked  to  the  Territory,  and  within  a  decade  and  a  half  a  new 
State,  Ohio,  the  first  of  the  five,  was  carved  from  the  Northwest 
Territory  and  admitted  to  the  Union. 

In  the  meantime,  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  coun- 
try was  showing  increased  signs  of  disintegration.     As  a  consti- 

25  Hinsdale,  '  Old  Northwest,"  ch.   xv. 

26  Preston,  "  Documents  Illustrative  of  American  History,"  p.  240. 


320  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1781-1789 

tution  of  government  the  Articles  had  proved  well-nigh  a  failure, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  under  their  authority  Congress  had 
performed  some  conspicuous  services  for  the  nation.  It  had  con- 
cluded a  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain;  it  had  negotiated 
treaties  with  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  Prussia  and  Morocco ;  it  had 
established  our  system  of  decimal  currency;  it  had  acquired  the 
Northwest  Territory  for  the  nation,  and  had  provided  a  consti- 
tution of  government  and  a  bill  of  rights  therefor;  it  had  in  a 
most  imperfect  way  supplied  the  need  of  a  general  government  dur- 
ing the  formative  period  of  the  Republic.  Whatever  we  may 
say  of  its  defects,  its  weaknesses  and  its  failures,  it  was  better 
than  no  government  at  all,  for  it  maintained  some  sort  of  relation 
between  the  States  and  so  kept  alive  the  idea  of  union  and  of 
common  action.  But  this  was  all.  The  course  of  events  had  now 
reached  a  point  where  a  more  perfect  union  with  a  more  efficient 
government  must  be  devised,  put  in  operation,  and  made  to  work, 
unless  the  Revolution  was  to  prove  a  failure  and  the  country  was 
to  sink  into  anarchy  and  the  disorders  of  jarring  States,  only  to 
become  the  prey  of  some  European  power. 


Chapter  XIV 

ESTABLISHMENT   OF   THE    REPUBLIC.     1785-1789 

I 

ORIGIN    OF    THE    PHILADELPHIA    CONVENTION 

THE  events  of  the  year  1 786-1 787  settled  conclusively  the 
fate  of  the  Confederation.  All  the  disorders  and  troubles 
described  in  the  preceding  chapter,  and  others  besides,  seem 
to  have  culminated  at  this  time.  Shay's  rebellion,  the  rejection 
of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the 
paper  money  craze,  the  disorders  in  Vermont  and  New  Hampshire, 
the  dispute  with  Spain  concerning  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
River,  and  the  trouble  with  the  Barbary  powers,  all  occurred  during 
this  period  and  afforded  abundant  proof,  if  proof  were  necessary, 
that  the  nation  was  in  danger  of  utter  disintegration  for  lack  of  a 
more  perfect  union  and  a  more  efficient  government.  The  three 
attempts  to  amend  the  existing  constitution  had  all  resulted  in  fail- 
ures, and  many  began  to  despair  of  escape  from  its  evils  except  by 
armed  revolution. 

The  train  of  events  which  led  up  to  the  calling  of  a  national 
convention  and  the  adoption  of  a  new  constitution  had  its  origin 
in  the  disorders  occasioned  by  the  lack  of  uniform  commercial 
arrangements,  resulting  from  the  power  of  the  individual  States  to 
regulate  commerce  among  themselves  and  with  foreign  nations.  It 
began  with  a  conference  of  commissioners  representing  the  States 
of  Maryland  and  Virginia,  which  was  called  to  meet  at  Mount 
Vernon  in  1785  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  a  common  commer- 
cial policy  with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  the  Potomac.  In  the 
course  of  the  deliberations  it  was  suggested  that  other  States,  par- 
ticularly Pennsylvania,  were  interested  in  the  navigation  of  the 
Potomac,  and  should,  therefore,  be  invited  to  participate  in  any 
discussion  looking  to  the  framing  of  regulations  for  that  purpose. 
Acting  upon  this  suggestion  James  Madison  induced  the  legislature 
of  Virginia  to  invite  commissioners  from  all  the  States  to  meet  at 

321 


322  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1786-1787 

Annapolis,  Maryland,  on  the  first  Monday  in  September,  1786,  to 
discuss  a  uniform  system  of  legislation  with  regard  to  interstate 
commerce.  The  convention  was  duly  called,  and  met  September 
1 1 ,  but  the  attendance  of  delegates  was  so  small  that  it  was  decided 
not  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  purposes  for  which  the  meet- 
ing had  been  called.  No  delegates  appeared  from  any  State  east 
of  New  York,  or  from  any  State  south  of  Virginia.  Massa- 
chusetts, New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island  and  North  Carolina  ap- 
pointed delegates,  but  they  did  not  attend;  while  no  action  was 
taken  by  Maryland,  Georgia,  South  Carolina  and  Connecticut.1 

But  the  opportunity  which  the  convention  afforded,  small  as 
it  was,  could  not  be  allowed  to  go  unimproved;  and,  accordingly, 
before  adjourning,  an  address  prepared  by  Alexander  Hamilton,  one 
of  the  delegates  from  New  York,  was  adopted  after  a  lengthy  dis- 
cussion, and  sent  to  the  people.  The  address  urged  the  appoint- 
ment by  all  the  States  of  delegates  to  a  convention  to  be  held  at 
Philadelphia  on  the  second  Monday  in  May,  1787,  empowered  "to 
devise  such  further  provisions  as  shall  appear  to  them  necessary 
to  render  the  Constitution  of  the  federal  government  adequate  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  Union,  and  to  report  to  Congress  such  an  act  as 
when  agreed  to  by  them  and  confirmed  by  the  legislature  of  every 
vState  would  effectually  provide  for  the  same."  This  was  striking 
at  the  root  of  the  difficulty.  No  mere  trade  convention  was  to 
be  called,  but  a  constituent  assembly,  authorized  to  remodel  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  and  to  endow  Congress  with  more  ef- 
fective powers ;  and  yet  the  requirement  that  the  approval  of  every 
State  should  be  necessary  for  the  change  presented  the  same  old 
obstacle  which  had  already  defeated  amendment  on  three  previous 
occasions. 

At  first  Congress  refused  to  approve  of  the  proposed  conven- 
tion ;  but  the  rejection  of  the  impost  amendment  by  New  York,  to- 
gether with  other  events  occurring  at  this  time,  showing  the  in- 
adequacy of  the  existing  system,  caused  a  change  of  sentiment 
which  led  that  body  to  give  its  endorsement  to  the  movement  and 
to  issue  the  call  in  February,  1787.  The  decision  of  Congress  was 
doubtless  hastened  by  the  action  of  the  States,  which  from  the 
first  took  a  lively  interest  in  the  proposed  convention.  Before 
Congress  had  given  its  approval,  in  fact,  Virginia,  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  North  Carolina  and  Delaware  had  chosen  their  dele- 
1  Gay,   "  James   Madison,"  pp.   52-60. 


•  ■  ■  -""■" 


yft-V^- 


A  LEX  A  X  DEK    H  A M I LTOX 

(Horn,     IT.".;.      Died,    1S(I4) 

Painting    by    Weimar,    in    the    Governor's    Room,    City    Hall,    New   York 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC     323 

1787 

gates,  among  them  many  of  the  most  distinguished  men  of  the 
country.  This  gave  prestige  to  the  project,  and  immediately  fol- 
lowing the  recommendation  of  Congress,  Massachusetts,  New  York, 
Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Connecticut,  Maryland  and  New  Hamp- 
shire fell  in  line  and  chose  their  delegates.  Of  the  thirteen  States 
Rhode  Island  alone  refused  to  appoint  delegates  or  to  take  any 
part  in  the  convention.  Ever  since  the  Revolution  that  State  had 
pursued  a  narrow  and  selfish  policy,  and  it  was,  therefore,  no  sur- 
prise when  it  was  announced  that  she  would  take  no  part  in  the 
movement  which  had  for  its  purpose  the  revision  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation.  Under  the  existing  arrangement  Rhode  Island 
was  free  to  profit  by  her  favored  geographical  position  by  collecting 
duties  on  trade  coming  into  her  ports,  whether  from  abroad  or  from 
the  neighboring  States,  and  she  naturally,  therefore,  preferred  not 
to  surrender  such  advantages  even  for  the  common  good  of  all 
the  States.2 

The  convention  met  May  25,  1787,  in  the  old  State  House  at 
Philadelphia,  a  building  already  famous  as  the  place  where  the 
Continental  Congress  had  many  times  assembled,  and  where  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  had  been  adopted  and  published  to  the 
world.  It  was  by  far  the  most  distinguished  assembly  which  Amer- 
ica had  ever  seen,  and  with  a  few  exceptions  included  all  the  great 
characters  of  the  country  who  enjoyed  anything  like  national  repu- 
tations. Seven  of  them  had  signed  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence and  four  had  signed  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  Nearly 
all  had  had  legislative  experience,  either  in  Congress  or  in  the 
State  legislatures,  while  some  had  distinguished  themselves  on  the 
bench  or  in  the  army. 

Altogether  there  were  fifty-five  delegates  present,  while  eigh- 
teen others  who  had  been  chosen  did  not  attend.  More  than  half 
of  them  were  graduates  of  universities,  including  Harvard,  Yale, 
Columbia,  Princeton,  William  and  Mary,  Oxford,  Glasgow  and 
Edinburgh.  The  most  illustrious  delegates,  neither  man  of  uni- 
versity training,  were  Washington  and  Franklin,  the  latter  being 
then  in  his  eighty-first  year,  and  the  oldest  member  of  the  con- 
vention. Other  delegates,  whose  names  are  both  famous  and 
familiar,  were  Elbridge  Gerry  and  Rufus  King  of  Massachusetts, 
the  one  a  future  Vice  President,  the  other  a  leading  senator ;  Roger 

2  McMaster,    "  History    of   the    People    of   the   United    States,"    vol.    i.   pp. 
390-399. 


324  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1787 

Sherman  and  Oliver  Ellsworth  of  Connecticut,  the  latter  a  future 
chief  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court;  Alexander  Hamilton  of  New 
York,  one  of  the  youngest  members,  destined  to  a  brilliant  though 
short  career;  James  Wilson,  Gouverneur  Morris  and  Robert  Mor- 
ris of  Pennsylvania,  the  first  mentioned  a  learned  jurist  and  future 
justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  two  latter,  future  senators  in 
Congress ;  James  Madison  of  Virginia,  the  "  father  of  the  Consti- 
tution," a  future  President,  destined  to  outlive  all  his  confreres 
of  the  convention;  and  John  Rutledge  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney  of 
South  Carolina. 

Of  the  distinguished  Americans  who  were  not  members  of  the 
convention,  John  Adams  and  Thomas  Jefferson  were  both  ministers 
abroad,  while  Samuel  Adams,  John  Hancock,  Patrick  Henry  and 
Richard  Henry  Lee  opposed  the  convention  and  refused  to  serve 
as  delegates.  John  Jay,  another  able  and  distinguished  man,  was 
left  at  home  because  his  State,  New  York,  not  being  in  sympathy 
with  the  purposes  of  the  convention,  preferred  a  commonplace  dele- 
gation and  accordingly  chose  two  narrow  States'  rights  men  to 
offset  the  influence  of  Hamilton.  This  fact,  together  with  Hamil- 
ton's well-known  leanings  towards  the  British  form  of  govern- 
ment, prevented  him  from  exerting  the  full  influence  which  his 
brilliant  talents  would  otherwise  have  made  possible.  The  con- 
vention organized  by  electing  George  Washington  as  president ; 
the  doors  were  then  closed  to  outsiders,  and  the  work  of  making 
a  new  Constitution  began.  It  was  foreseen  that  the  deliberations 
of  the  convention  would  be  marked  by  dissension  and  strife,  and 
it  was  believed  that  the  ratification  of  their  work  would  be  most 
likely  assured  if  it  were  presented  to  the  people  as  the  unanimous 
product  of  the  convention.  The  delegates  were,  therefore,  put  un- 
der a  pledge  of  secrecy,  and  had  it  not  been  for  the  industry  and 
foresight  of  Madison,  who  kept  a  journal  of  the  daily  happenings, 
which  was  published  some  fifty  years  later,  we  should  know  very 
little  of  the  proceedings  of  that  famous  assembly.3 

II 

FRAMING   THE    CONSTITUTION 

Upon  the  completion  of  the  organization  several  "  plans  "  were 

brought  in  by  individuals  or  State  delegations,  and  these  served 

3  Curtis,   "  Constitutional    History   of   the   United    States,"   vol.   i.   ch.    xvi. ; 
Fislce,  "  Critical   Period,"  ch.  vi. 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      325 

1787 

to  furnish  a  basis  for  discussion  and  at  the  same  time  led  to  the 
grouping  of  the  delegates  into  several  indistinct  parties.  The  first 
of  these  projects  was  that  known  as  the  "  Virginia  plan,"  intro- 
duced by  Governor  Randolph  as  the  spokesman  of  the  Virginia 
delegation.  One  of  the  resolutions  declared  "  that  a  national  gov- 
ernment ought  to  be  established,  consisting  of  a  supreme  legisla- 
ture, executive  and  judiciary."  One  of  the  main  defects  of  the 
government  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  was  that  it  was 
not  national ;  it  rested  upon  the  States  rather  than  upon  individuals. 
Furthermore,  there  was  no  supreme  executive  or  judiciary.  The 
Virginia  plan  proposed  to  go  further  than  a  mere  revision  of 
the  Articles;  it  contemplated  an  entirely  new  scheme  of  govern- 
ment involving  a  substantial  limitation  upon  the  autonomy  of  the 
States  and  a  corresponding  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the 
national  government.  It  proposed  to  create  a  Congress  of  two 
houses,  modeled  after  the  organization  of  the  State  legislatures 
(except  in  Georgia  and  Pennsylvania,  where  single  chambered 
legislative  bodies  existed)  and  in  both  the  votes  were  to  be  by 
individuals  and  not  by  States,  as  under  the  Articles  of  Confeder- 
ation. The  States  were  to  be  represented  in  the  Congress  in  pro- 
portion to  their  population,  so  that  the  large  State  of  Virginia 
would  have  sixteen  representatives,  whereas  Georgia  would  have 
but  one.  The  executive  authority,  whether  vested  in  one  or  sev- 
eral persons,  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  Congress,  and  the  judiciary 
was  to  be  given  power  to  determine  questions  arising  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  to  settle  disputes 
between  the  States.4 

This  radical  scheme  created  strong  opposition  among  the  dele- 
gates from  the  small  States,  who  saw  in  it  the  destruction  of  the 
Congressional  equality  which  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed  with  the 
large  States,  and  the  curtailment  of  some  of  their  powers  of  sov- 
ereignty, for  the  benefit  of  the  Union.  They  denied  that  the  con- 
vention had  any  power  to  go  further  than  a  mere  revision  of 
the  Articles  of  Confederation.  It  was  well  known,  they  said, 
that  Congress  in  issuing  the  call  for  the  convention  had  declared 
that  it  was  for  the  "  sole  and  express  purpose  of  revising  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,"  while  the  credentials  of  the  delegations 
of  most  of  the  States  restricted  their  action  in  the  same  way.     The 

4McMaster,    "History   of   the    People   of   the    United    States,"   vol.   i.   pp. 
439-444- 


326  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1787 

Articles  of  Confederation,  they  maintained,  did  not  need  to  be 
rejected  in  toto;  in  principle  they  were  good  enough  and  only 
needed  revision  along  certain  lines  where  experience  had  shown 
them  to  be  defective.  The  views  of  this  party  were  formulated 
in  the  "  New  Jersey  plan,"  submitted  by  William  Patterson,  one  of 
the  delegates  from  that  State.  This  plan  proposed  to  amend  the 
Articles  so  as  to  provide  for  a  national  judiciary  and  executive, 
while  retaining  the  unicameral  Congress,  but  increasing  its  powers, 
notably  with  regard  to  taxation  and  commerce.  But  the  old  theory 
of  the  relation  between  the  States  and  the  central  government  was 
to  be  retained ;  the  national  government  was  to  continue  to  act  upon 
the  States  rather  than  upon  the  people,  and  worst  of  all,  the  old 
principle  of  equality  of  representation  in  Congress  was  to  be  re- 
tained. The  most  that  can  be  said  for  the  New  Jersey  plan  was 
that  it  was  but  a  halfway  measure.  In  general  it  was  favored 
by  the  delegates  from  Connecticut,  New  York,  Delaware  and 
Maryland,  and  opposed  by  those  from  Massachusetts,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
A  long  and  at  times  heated  debate  between  the  advocates  of  the 
two  plans  followed,  and  occasionally  it  appeared  as  if  the  conven- 
tion would  be  compelled  to  break  up  without  having  attained  any 
result.  Some  of  the  delegates  from  the  small  States  indulged  in 
threats  of  disunion,  Bedford,  of  Delaware,  declaring  that  if  their 
rights  could  not  be  secured  there  were  foreign  powers  ready  to  take 
them  by  the  hand.5  On  one  occasion,  when  the  situation  was  at 
its  worst  and  further  progress  seemed  impossible,  the  venerable 
Franklin  rose  in  his  seat  and  suggested  that  the  temper  of  the  con- 
vention might  be  improved  by  opening  the  morning  sessions  with 
prayer;  but  his  motion  did  not  meet  with  favor,  for  the  reason 
that  it  might  arouse  the  suspicions  of  the  public  as  to  what  was 
happening  behind  the  doors. 

The  rock  upon  which  the  convention  came  near  splitting  was 
the  question  of  representation.  The  group  of  delegates  represent- 
ing the  larger  States  won  its  first  victory  when  it  was  decided  that 
the  Congress  should  consist  of  two  houses  instead  of  one.  This 
party  then  insisted  that  the  States  should  be  represented  in  both 
houses  in  proportion  to  population,  while  the  smaller  States  con- 
tended with  the  same  insistence  for  equal  representation  in  both. 
"  There  is  no  more  reason,"  said  a  delegate  from  one  of  the  smaller 
r'  Fiske,   "  Critical    Period,"   p.    250. 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      327 

1787 

States,  "  why  a  large  State  should  have  more  votes  in  the  legisla- 
ture than  that  a  large  man  should  have  more  votes  than  a  small 
one."  Without  equality  of  representation,  the  smaller  States  would 
be  tyrannized  over  by  the  larger  ones ;  it  was  their  only  weapon  of 
defense.  On  the  other  hand,  Madison,  Wilson,  King  and  others 
pointed  out  with  convincing  logic  the  injustice  of  allowing  one  State 
with  a  population  sixteen  times  as  large  as  that  of  its  neighbor 
no  more  representatives  in  the  national  legislature.  For  a  long 
time  both  parties  held  out,  but  finally  the  convention  came  to  the 
scheme  proposed  by  Sherman  and  Ellsworth,  by  which  the  represen- 
tation was  to  be  popular  in  the  lower  branch  and  by  States  in  the 
upper.  Known  as  the  Connecticut  Compromise,  this  famous  ar- 
rangement saved  the  convention  from  dissolution  and  made  the 
Constitution  a  possibility  and  a  success.  Thus  it  was  agreed  that 
each  State  should  have  two  senators  in  the  upper  branch  and  one 
representative  in  the  lower  house  for  every  30,000  of  its  popula- 
tion. As  an  illustration  of  the  practical  operation  of  the  rule  of 
apportionment  today  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  note  that  while 
the  States  of  New  York  and  Nevada,  with  populations  of 
7,000,000  and  42,000  respectively,  have  equal  representation  in  the 
Senate,  New  York's  representation  in  the  lower  house  is  thirty- 
seven  times  as  great  as  that  of  Nevada.6 

This,  the  greatest  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  was 
adopted  on  July  16  by  the  close  vote  of  five  to  four.  Although 
it  disposed  of  the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  further  progress  of  the 
convention,  it  by  no  means  insured  smooth  sailing  to  the  end.  As 
soon  as  it  was  determined  that  representation  in  the  lower  house 
should  be  apportioned  according  to  the  basis  of  population,  it  be- 
came necessary  to  determine  who  constituted  the  population.  Un- 
fortunately this  led  to  a  differentation  of  parties  along  sectional 
lines,  and  gave  rise  to  the  discussion  of  slavery.  It  was  no  longer 
a  contest  between  large  and  small  States,  but  between  slave  States 
and  free  States.  On  this  question  the  delegates  from  the  southern 
States  insisted  that  both  the  slave  and  free  population  should  be 
counted  in  determining  the  basis  of  apportionment.  They  said, 
what  was  perfectly  true,  that  the  slaves  were  a  part  of  the  popula- 
tion, and  contributed  largely  to  the  economic  development  of  the 
country.  To  this  the  northern  delegates  replied  that  the  slaves 
were,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  mere  chattels,  and  as  they  were  denied 

0  Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  chs.  xii.-xiii. 


328  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1787 

the  right  of  suffrage  it  would  vastly  increase  the  weight  of  the  south 
in  the  councils  of  the  nation  in  proportion  to  the  voting  population 
if  it  were  allowed  representation  for  the  slaves.  If,  said,  a  north- 
ern delegate,  negroes  are  not  represented  in  the  States  to  which  they 
belong,  why  should  they  be  represented  in  the  general  government. 
On  this  point  Gouverneur  Morris  declared,  "  I  would  sooner  submit 
myself  to  a  tax  for  paying  for  all  the  negroes  in  the  United  States 
than  saddle  posterity  with  such  a  Constitution."  But  the  good 
sense  of  the  delegates  prevailed,  and  a  way  of  settling  the  dispute 
by  compromise  was  found,  as  in  the  case  of  the  controversy  between 
the  large  and  the  small  States  over  the  basis  of  representation. 

The  question  had  come  up  in  1783  when  Congress  was  en- 
deavoring to  find  an  equitable  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  the 
revenue  quotas  among  the  States.  The  southern  States  then  ob- 
jected to  the  counting  of  the  slaves  in  determining  the  basis  of 
apportionment,  since  it  would  increase  their  quotas.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  north  favored  counting  the  slaves.  As  a  compromise, 
Madison  had  suggested  that  for  the  purpose  of  apportioning  taxes 
five  slaves  should  be  counted  as  three  free  men,  and  the  suggestion 
met  with  favor.  It  was  now  proposed  to  employ  the  same  illogical 
method  for  settling  the  dispute  with  regard  to  representation,  and 
it  was  adopted.  According  to  this  provision,  in  determining  the 
population  for  the  apportionment  of  direct  federal  taxes  and  repre- 
sentation in  the  lower  house  of  Congress,  but  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves  were  to  be  counted.  By  counting  part  of  the  slave  popula- 
tion the  south  got  a  corresponding  increase  of  representatives  but 
suffered  the  disadvantage  of  an  increase  of  direct  taxes.  But  as 
the  imposition  of  direct  taxes  has  been  rarely  resorted  to,  while  the 
south  continued  to  enjoy  the  increased  representation  as  long  as 
slavery  existed,  the  advantage  was  greater  than  the  disadvantage. 
The  operation  of  this  rule  afterwards  became  the  subject  of  com- 
plaint in  the  north,  since  it  resulted  in  almost  doubling  the  repre- 
sentation of  some  of  the  southern  States  in  Congress,  in  propor- 
tion to  their  voting  population.  But  it  is  clear  that  without  it 
the  Constitution  could  not  have  been  adopted ;  it  was  the  best  solu- 
tion attainable  under  the  then  existing  circumstances. 

The  third  great  compromise  was  also  of  a  sectional  char- 
acter and  related  to  the  foreign  slave  trade.  The  States  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia  refused  to  consent  to  a  prohibition  of  the 
importation   of  slaves,   although  the   other   southern    States   were 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      829 

1787 

in  favor  of  stopping  further  importation.  The  northern  States 
were  also  anxious  to  confer  upon  Congress  power  to  regulate  for- 
eign and  interstate  commerce,  the  sad  experience  under  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  admonishing  them  that  such  power  could  not  be 
left  safely  with  the  States.  But  here  again  the  southern  States 
were  at  issue  with  those  of  the  north.  None  of  them  favored  vest- 
ing Congress  with  control  over  commerce,  for  fear  the  New  Eng- 
land States  might,  by  a  simple  majority  of  Congress,  secure  a 
monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade  and  then  oppress  the  south  by 
charging  high  transportation  rates.  Here,  again,  were  the  ma- 
terials for  a  compromise,  and  a  bargain  was  accordingly  struck 
by  which  it  was  agreed  that  Congress  should  have  no  power  to 
prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  prior  to  the  year  1808,  during 
which  time  the  southern  planters  would  have  an  opportunity  to 
stock  their  plantations  with  an  adequate  supply  of  negroes.  In 
return  for  this  concession  the  southern  States  consented  to  invest 
Congress  with  the  power  to  regulate  foreign  and  interstate  com- 
merce.7 It  is  worthy  of  note  that  this  compromise  was  carried 
through  against  the  strong  opposition  of  Virginia,  one  of  whose 
delegates,  Mason,  denounced  the  slave  trade  as  an  "  infernal  traf- 
fic," while  the  State  as  a  whole  opposed  the  investment  of  Con- 
gress with  the  absolute  power  over  commerce.  This  compromise 
has  been  criticised  as  an  undue  concession  to  slavery  but  it  secured 
the  adhesion  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  without  which  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  would  have  been  doubtful,  if  not  im- 
possible. It  is  certain  that  the  settlement  by  compromise,  however 
open  to  criticism  and  objection,  of  these  three  great  questions  which 
divided  the  northern  and  southern  States  and  the  large  and  small 
States,  insured  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.8 

The  most  difficult  work  of  the  convention  was  thus  accom- 
plished and  what  remained  was  comparatively  easy  of  settlement. 
But  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  there  were  many  other  minor 
antagonisms,  and  consequently  many  other  compromises  of  less 
note  than  the  three  mentioned  above.  In  fact,  the  Constitution  is 
an  instrument  of  compromises,  like  all  the  great  legislative  work 
of  the  English-speaking  people ;  is  perhaps  the  most  notable  instance 
in  history  of  what  a  judicious  spirit  of  compromise  can  effect. 
Moreover,  just  as  the  Constitution  is  an  instrument  of  compromises, 

7  Fiske,   "  Critical    Period,"   p.   262. 

8  Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States."  vol.  i.  ch.  xxvi. 


330  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1787 

so  is  it  an  admirable  example  of  judicious  selection  and  adaptation 
of  materials  already  at  hand.  The  mistake  is  frequently  made  of 
eulogizing  the  Constitution  as  if  it  were  solely  or  primarily  an 
original  creation;  one  of  its  admirers,  William  E.  Gladstone,  going 
so  far  as  to  say  that  it  was  the  greatest  piece  of  work  ever  struck 
off  at  one  time  by  the  brain  and  purpose  of  man.  But  the  fact  is, 
there  is  little  absolutely  new  matter  in  the  Constitution,  and  on 
the  other  hand  there  is  much  that  is  as  old  as  Magna  Charta. 

Political  institutions  are  not  the  result  of  invention,  but  of 
growth,  adaptation  and  combination.  The  framers  of  our  Con- 
stitution realized  this  and  did  not,  therefore,  commit  the  French 
error  of  attempting  to  break  with  the  past,  but  followed  the  teach- 
ings of  British  and  colonial  experience  wherever  practicable. 
Many  of  the  delegates  had  helped  to  frame  the  State  constitutions 
under  which  they  lived;  and  all  were  familiar  with  the  practical 
working  of  these,  as  well  as  of  the  British  Constitution.  Many,  if 
not  most,  of  the  institutions  of  government  under  which  we  live, 
therefore,  have  their  prototype  in  the  colonial  and  British  constitu- 
tions, and  experience  shows  that  in  the  few  instances  where  the 
framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution  broke  away  from  the  past  and 
attempted  to  create  new  institutions  which  did  not  have  the  sanc- 
tion of  long  usage,  the  Constitution  has  proved  least  successful  in 
practice.  This  is  well  shown  in  the  working  of  the  electoral  ma- 
chinery created  for  the  choice  of  the  President  —  a  device  which 
has  totally  failed  to  meet  the  expectations  of  the  framers.9  Other 
sources  of  the  Constitution  were  the  English  common  law  and 
the  writings  of  Blackstone,  Montesquieu  and  Locke,  while  the 
"  Social  Contract  "  of  Rousseau  was  not  without  its  influence  upon 
American  thought  then  turned  almost  exclusively  to  questions  of 
government.  Blackstone  was  the  most  noted  expounder  of  the 
English  Constitution,  and  his  commentaries  were  widely  read  and 
studied  in  America,  while  Montesquieu  was  the  ablest  political 
writer  of  the  time,  and  his  theory  of  the  separation  of  legislative, 
executive  and  judicial  powers  unquestionably  had  a  large  influence 
in  determining  the  broad  outlines  of  the  national  government.1" 
The  influence  of  Dutch  institutions  probably  amounted  to  some- 
thing, but  it  was  not  considerable. 

!'  Bryce,   "  The   American    Commonwealth."   abridged    edition,   ch.   ii. 
10  See  Merriam.  "American   Political  Theories,"  ch.   ii. ;  also   Stevens,  "The 
Sources  of  the  Constitution." 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      331 

1787 

The  most  purely  original  part  of  the  convention's  work  was 
naturally  the  formulation  and  apportionment  of  the  powers  of 
government  between  the  national  authority  on  one  hand  and  the 
States  on  the  other.  Profiting  by  the  experience  of  the  Confed- 
eration, the  majority  of  the  convention  were  in  favor  of  invest- 
ing the  national  government  with  more  adequate  powers.  It  was 
therefore  given  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  to  coin  money,  fix  the 
standard  of  weights  and  measures,  establish  post  offices  and  post 
roads,  grant  patents  and  copyrights,  raise  and  support  armies, 
maintain  a  navy,  declare  war,  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
suppress  insurrection,  repel  invasion,  regulate  foreign  and  inter- 
state commerce,  maintain  diplomatic  relations  with  foreign  nations, 
control  naturalization  and  bankruptcy,  borrow  money  on  the  credit 
of  the  United  States,  etc.  Certainly  these  were  powers  which  ex- 
perience had  taught  could  not  be  safely  left  with  the  States,  while 
subsequent  history  has  abundantly  justified  the  wisdom  of  vesting 
them  in  the  national  government.  Realizing  the  impossibility  of 
expressly  enumerating  all  the  powers  of  Congress,  the  convention 
finally  inserted  a  sort  of  sweeping  clause  which  empowers  Con- 
gress to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  enumerated  powers.  Under  this  clause 
has  been  built  up  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers  which  has  de- 
veloped such  an  important  branch  of  our  constitutional  law. 

On  the  other  hand  Congress  was  expressly  prohibited  from 
suspending  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  except  in  time 
of  rebellion  or  invasion,  from  passing  bills  of  attainder  and  ex 
post  facto  laws,  from  laying  duties  on  articles  exported  from  any 
State,  from  discriminating  in  favor  of  any  port  in  respect  to  com- 
mercial regulations,  from  granting  titles  of  nobility,  etc.  It  was 
also  deemed  wise  to  place  certain  limitations  upon  the  power  of 
the  States  in  the  interest  of  the  general  welfare.  They  were  ac- 
cordingly forbidden  to  enter  into  treaties  or  alliances,  grant  letters 
of  marque  and  reprisal,  coin  money,  emit  bills  of  credit,  make  any- 
thing but  gold  or  silver  a  legal  tender  in  payment  of  debts,  a  pro- 
vision suggested  by  the  paper  money  craze  in  the  States,  pass  bills 
of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  laws,  or  laws  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  or  grant  titles  of  nobility.  They  were  also  forbidden 
to  exercise  certain  other  powers,  notably  the  levying  of  duties  on 
imports  or  exports  and  the  keeping  of  troops  or  ships  of  war  in 


332  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1787 

time  of  peace,  except  with  the  consent  of  Congress.  The  theory 
underlying  the  relations  between  the  national  government  and  the 
States  was  that  the  powers  of  the  former  should  be  enumerated, 
while  all  others  except  those  prohibited  should  be  left  to  the  States. 
That  is  to  say,  the  States  have  reserved  or  residuary  powers,  while 
the  national  government  is  one  of  enumerated  powers.  But  it  is 
a  mistake  to  assume,  as  is  sometimes  done,  that  the  United  States 
was  made  supreme  over  the  States.  The  truth  is,  the  Constitu- 
tion marked  out  a  sphere  for  each,  and  each  is  supreme  within 
that  sphere.  Thus  each  individual  is  subject  to  two  jurisdictions 
and  two  sets  of  authorities,  and  even  has  two  allegiances,  and  while 
the  Federal  Constitution  and  laws  are  declared  to  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land,  it  must  not  be  understood  that  the  supremacy  of 
national  law  affects  the  action  of  the  States  in  the  sphere  reserved 
to  them.  They  are  subordinate  only  in  the  extent  of  their  juris- 
diction. Their  powers  seem  insignificant  as  compared  with  those 
of  the  United  States  merely  because  the  latter  are  enumerated. 
They  include,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  whole  domain  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  education,  suffrage,  marriage,  divorce,  domestic 
relations,  contracts,  business,  property,  trade,  and,  for  the  most 
part,  the  administration  of  the  criminal  law.  Their  powers  are 
impossible  of  enumeration ;  to  detail  them  would  be  to  catalogue  all 
social  and  business  relationships,  to  examine  all  the  foundations 
of  law  and  order.11 

As  already  noted,  the  Congress  was  made  to  consist  of  two 
houses  —  a  Senate  and  a  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate  to 
consist  of  two  senators  from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legislatures 
thereof  for  a  term  of  six  years,  the  House  of  Representatives  to 
be  composed  of  members  chosen  by  popular  vote  for  a  term  of 
two  years.  Congress  was  required  to  assemble  at  least  once  in 
every  year,  and  each  chamber  was  to  be  the  judge  of  the  elections 
and  qualifications  of  its  own  members.  The  executive  power  was 
vested  in  a  President  to  be  chosen  for  a  term  of  four  years  by  elec- 
tors from  each  State.  Each  State  was  to  choose  as  many  electors  as 
it  had  senators  and  representatives  in  Congress;  these  were  to  meet 
at  the  State  capital,  cast  their  ballots  and  transmit  the  same  to  the 
president  of  the  Senate,  Congress  to  serve  as  a  canvassing  board. 
Eligibility  to  the  office  was  restricted  to  natural-born  citizens,  and 
provision  was  made  for  a  Vice  President,  to  be  chosen  in  the  same 
11  Wilson,  "  The  State,"  p.  487. 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      333 

1787 

manner  and  at  the  same  time,  to  succeed  the  President  in  case  of 
death,  resignation,  removal  or  inability  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  office.12  Among  the  duties  of  the  President  were  the  com- 
mand of  the  army  and  navy,  the  granting  of  reprieves  and  par- 
dons for  offenses  against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  of 
impeachment,  the  negotiation  of  treaties  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  two-thirds  of  the  Senate,  the  appointment  of  officers  of 
the  United  States,  the  furnishing  of  Congress  with  information 
regarding  the  state  of  the  Union,  the  recommendation  of  legislative 
measures,  the  calling  of  Congress  in  extraordinary  session,  the  re- 
ception of  ambassadors  and  ministers  from  foreign  countries,  and 
the  execution  of  the  laws. 

The  judicial  power  was  to  be  vested  in  a  Supreme  Court,  and 
such  inferior  courts  as  Congress  might  establish.  It  was  made 
to  include  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  all  treaties  made  in  pursuance  thereof;  all 
cases  affecting  diplomatic  agents;  all  cases  of  admiralty  and  mari- 
time jurisdiction;  all  cases  in  which  the  United  States  or  a  State 
is  a  party,  and  a  few  others.  The  objection  to  allowing  State 
courts  jurisdiction  in  such  cases  is  obvious,  and  the  lack  of  a  national 
judiciary  to  take  cognizance  of  such  matters  under  the  Confeder- 
ation was  one  of  the  defects  of  the  old  scheme  of  government. 
Hardly  any  feature  of  the  Constitution  has  given  so  great  satisfac- 
tion as  the  national  judiciary,  and  the  Supreme  Court  in  particular 
has  been  the  admiration  of  students  of  political  science  throughout 
the  civilized  world.  Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  constitution  of 
government  on  which  the  convention  labored  long  and  assiduously 
throughout  the  summer  of  1787.  From  May  25  to  September  17 
its  great  work  slowly  assumed  shape,  and  on  the  latter  date 
the  result  was  ready  for  submission  to  the  people.13 

During  the  course  of  the  long  summer  many  members  of  the 
convention  had  despaired  of  ever  reaching  on  agreement,  but  there 
were  enough,  like  Randolph,  who  were  ready,  as  he  said,  to  bury 
their  bones  in  Philadelphia  before  breaking  up  without  performing 
the  task  for  which  they  had  been  called  together.  Their  determina- 
tion and  faith  were  at  last  rewarded.     The  great  document  was 

12  Citizens  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  new  Con- 
stitution were  also  declared  eligible  to  the  office  of  President. 

13  McMaster,   "  History   of   the    People    of   the   United    States,"   vol.    i.    pp. 
440-452. 


334  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1787 

finished  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  an  adept 
in  the  use  of  grammar  and  rhetoric,  for  final  draft.  In  his  skillful 
hand  it  was  freed  from  redundant  phrases  and  ambiguous  expres- 
sions, and  in  this  form  was  signed  by  the  delegates.  Of  the  fifty- 
five  members,  thirty-nine  attached  their  signatures.  Four  mem- 
bers, Luther  Martin  of  Maryland,  George  Mason  and  Edmund 
Randolph  of  Virginia,  and  Elbridge  Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  were 
dissatisfied  and  refused  to  sign.  The  other  delegates  whose  sig- 
natures are  not  attached  were  not  present  at  the  time  of  the  sign- 
ing. Before  adjournment  it  was  agreed  to  send  the  Constitution 
to  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  inasmuch  as  the  resolution 
of  February  I,  1787,  which  summoned  the  convention,  had  de- 
clared that  it  should  report  to  Congress.  It  was  further  agreed 
that  the  Congress  should  transmit  the  document  unchanged  to  the 
State  legislatures;  that  these  in  turn  were  to  submit  it  to  conven- 
tions in  their  respective  States  for  ratification ;  and  when  nine 
States  should  have  given  their  approval  it  should  go  into  operation 
between  the  States  so  ratifying.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  latter 
provision  was  in  conflict  with  the  amending  clause  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  which  declared  that  no  amendment  to  that  instru- 
ment should  be  made  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  thirteen 
States.  This  provision  was  now  disregarded,  the  Articles  totally 
set  aside,  and  the  approval  of  but  nine  States  was  required.  This 
stamps  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  revolutionary,  for  it 
was  ratified  by  a  process  unknown  to  the  existing  fundamental  law. 
But  if  ever  revolutionary  procedure  was  justified,  it  was  now;  ex- 
perience had  shown  that  it  was  impossible  to  amend  the  Articles 
according  to  the  methods  therein  prescribed;  continued  progress 
and  tranquillity  under  them  were  out  of  the  question. 

Ill 

THE  CONSTITUTION  RATIFIED 

The  day  after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention  the  new  Con- 
stitution was  laid  before  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  but  it  was 
thought  improper  by  that  body  to  take  action  until  Congress  should 
give  its  approval.  A  few  days  later  it  was  laid  before  Congress  and 
at  once  the  opposition  began,  under  the  leadership  of  Richard  Henry 
Lee  of  Virginia,  Nathan  Dane  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  members 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      335 

1787 

from  New  York.  Every  objection  which  the  mind  of  man  could 
conceive  was  raised  against  the  new  instrument,  but  the  sound 
arguments  of  Madison  and  others  prevailed,  and,  after  more  than 
a  week's  discussion,  it  was  agreed  to  submit  the  document  to  the 
States  for  ratification  or  rejection.14  A  great  issue  was  now  be- 
fore the  people,  and  the  division  into  parties  followed.  Those  who 
favored  ratification  came  to  be  known  as  "  Federalists  " ;  those  op- 
posed as  "  Anti-Federalists."  A  war  of  pamphlets  and  essays  in 
the  newspapers  ensued,  the  most  notable  of  which  became  famous 
as  the  "  Federalist,"  a  collection  of  papers  written  by  Hamilton, 
Madison  and  Jay,  and  originally  published  in  the  Independent 
Gazeteer,  over  the  signature  of  "  Publius."  There  were  eighty- 
five  numbers,  of  which  Hamilton  probably  wrote  fifty-five,  Madi- 
son fourteen,  Jay  five,  Hamilton  and  Madison  three  jointly,  leav- 
ing ten  which  were  written  either  by  Hamilton  or  Madison,  with 
the  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  former's  authorship.  These 
essays  were  devoted  to  explaining  the  different  parts  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  setting  forth  the  arguments  in  favor  of  ratification. 
It  is  the  most  valuable  contemporary  commentary  on  the  Constitu- 
tion which  we  have,  and  indeed  one  of  the  greatest  political  treatises 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  It  was  widely  circulated  and  largely 
read,  and  perhaps  accomplished  more  than  any  other  single  agency 
toward  insuring  the  popular  ratification  of  the  Constitution.15 

In  the  meantime  the  contest  in  Pennsylvania  was  raging; 
every  conceivable  objection  was  raised,  and  all  sorts  of  obstructive 
tactics  were  employed  by  the  opposition  to  bring  about  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Constitution.  In  the  course  of  the  struggle  two  Anti- 
Federalist  obstructionists  were  forcibly  seized,  carried  to  the  State 
House  and  held  in  their  seats  so  as  to  make  a  quorum.  But  the 
eloquence  and  logic  of  James  Wilson  overcame  all  opposition,  and 
on  December  12  the  Constitution  was  ratified  by  a  vote  of  forty- 
six  to  twenty-three.  Already  on  December  6  the  little  State  of 
Delaware,  whose  delegates  had  so  vigorously  opposed  the  Consti- 
tution in  the  convention,  gave  her  adherence,  thus  acquiring  the 
honor  of  being  the  first  State  to  come  under  the  "  New  Roof."  On 
December  18  New  Jersey,  another  one  of  the  small  States  which 
at  first  opposed  the  overthrow  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
ratified   by  a   large  majority.     Two  other   small   States,   Georgia 

14  Thorpe,  "  The  Const.  Hist,  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii. 

15  Lodge,  "  Alexander   Hamilton,"  pp.   65-69. 


336  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1787-1788 

and  Connecticut,  ratified  January  2  and  January  9,  respectively,  the 
former  by  a  unanimous  vote,  the  latter  by  a  vote  of  128  to  40.  All 
eyes  were  now  turned  toward  Massachusetts,  where  it  was  known 
that  the  opposition  was  very  strong,  and  whose  action  would  doubt- 
less influence  the  decision  of  the  conventions  in  other  States. 
Elbridge  Gerry  and  Samuel  Adams  were  at  heart  hostile  to  ratifica- 
tion, while  the  sympathy  of  Hancock  was  of  the  feeblest  sort;  but 
Adams  and  Hancock  were  both  brought  round  to  at  least  a  nominal 
support,  and  an  actual  vote,  so  that  the  sound  and  able  arguments 
of  King,  Gorham,  Strong,  Cabot  and  Bowdoin  carried  the  day. 
After  a  prolonged  discussion,  the  convention  ratified  the  Constitu- 
tion by  a  narrow  majority  of  187  to  168  votes  on  February  6,  1788, 
making  the  sixth  State  to  ratify.  But  this  ratification  was  accom- 
panied by  a  number  of  proposed  amendments.  Shortly  afterwards 
Maryland  ratified  by  a  large  majority,  despite  the  strong  opposition 
of  the  extreme  Anti-Federalist,  Luther  Martin,  a  leading  citizen 
of  the  State,  who,  after  serving  as  a  delegate  to  the  Philadelphia 
convention,  did  not  remain  to  sign  the  Constitution.16 

In  South  Carolina  there  was  considerable  opposition,  but  the 
Constitution  had  able  and  influential  supporters  in  the  two  Pinck- 
neys,  the  Rutledges  and  others,  who,  after  a  contest  of  eleven  days, 
overcame  all  obstruction  and  secured  the  ratification  by  a  vote  of 
149  to  73.  The  New  Hampshire  convention,  which  had  early  as- 
sembled, but  later  adjourned  to  await  the  action  of  other  States, 
now  reassembled,  and  with  the  good  news  from  South  Carolina 
ringing  in  their  ears,  ratified,  after  a  short  session,  by  a  vote  of  57 
to  46.  The  ratification  of  but  one  more  State  was  now  necessary. 
Before  New  Hampshire  had  ratified,  the  Virginia  convention  had 
assembled,  but  was  making  poor  progress,  on  account  of  the  strong 
opposition.  In  no  other  State  did  the  Anti-Federalists  have  so 
many  able  leaders.  Chief  among  them  were  Patrick  Henry,  one 
of  the  most  popular  orators  in  America,  Richard  Henry  Lee, 
George  Mason  and  James  Monroe.  But  the  Constitution  had 
powerful  champions  in  James  Madison,  Governor  Randolph,  who, 
having  refused  to  sign,  now  threw  hfs  great  influence  in  favor  of 
adoption,  "Light  Horse"  Harry  Lee,  and  John  Marshall,  the 
latter  destined  to  become  the  foremost  jurist  of  the  country. 

The  sound  logic  and  calm  reasoning  of  these  men  was  too 

'"Thorpe,   "The   Const.   Hist,  of  the   United   States,"  vol.  ii.   pp.   25-55. 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      337 

1788 

much  for  even  the  eloquence  of  Patrick  Henry  and  his  associates, 
and  after  three  weeks  of  debate  the  convention  ratified  the  Con- 
stitution by  a  vote  of  88  to  79.  The  ratification  of  Virginia,  the 
greatest  of  the  States,  and  then  regarded  as  the  leader  in  the  Union, 
was  followed  by  great  rejoicing,  for  the  general  acceptance  of  the 
Constitution  now  seemed  assured.17  New  York,  North  Carolina 
and  Rhode  Island,  however,  had  not  yet  ratified,  and  the  adhesion 
of  New  York,  on  account  of  its  geographical  position,  was  highly 
necessary  to  insure  the  completion  of  the  Union.  Her  attitude, 
therefore,  was  watched  with  the  greatest  interest  by  all  friends  of 
the  Union.  The  convention  which  assembled  at  Poughkeepsie  on 
June  17,  1788,  contained  an  overwhelming  majority  of  avowed 
Anti-Federalists,  the  chief  of  whom  was  George  Clinton,  a  States' 
right  champion  of  distinguished  ability  and  of  influence  by  virtue  of 
his  long  service  as  governor  of  the  State. 

In  no  one  of  the  conventions  yet  assembled  had  the  opposition 
been  so  active  and  determined.  But  the  few  Federalists  were 
equally  determined  and  equally  resolute.  Their  leader  was  Hamil- 
ton, whose  services  as  a  member  of  the  Federal  Convention  had 
been,  owing  to  his  adverse  colleagues,  confined  to  one  great  speech 
setting  forth  his  system  of  government,  and  to  exertions  with  the 
delegates  from  other  States.  Handicapped  as  he  had  been  at  Phil- 
adelphia, he  was  now  free  to  labor  with  all  his  might  for  ratifica- 
tion. As  chief  author  of  the  "  Federalist "  and  leader  of  the 
friends  of  the  Constitution  in  the  State  of  New  York,  his  services 
in  bringing  about  the  acceptance  of  the  scheme  of  government 
under  which  we  live  are  second  to  none  of  the  "  fathers."  No 
higher  tribute  can  be  paid  to  his  ability  and  influence  than  to 
say  that  in  spite  of  an  opposition  that  seemed  insurmountable,  he 
secured  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  a  vote  of  30  to  2j. 
Great  was  the  rejoicing  over  the  news  that  New  York  had  at  last 
decided  to  cast  her  lot  with  the  Union,  for  this  insured  the  geo- 
graphical unity  of  the  Republic.18 

The  North  Carolina  convention,  after  a  stormy  session,  ad- 
journed without  coming  to  any  decision,  while  Rhode  Island  did 
not  show  sufficient  friendliness  to  call  a  convention  for  the  pur- 
pose of  even  considering  the  Constitution.     In  view  of  her  course 

17  Hunt,  "Life  of  James  Madison,"  ch.  xvi. 

18  Lodge,  "  Alexander  Hamilton,"  pp.  69-79 !   Thorpe,  "  The   Constitutional 
History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  ch.  iv. 


338  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1788-1789 

since  the  Revolution  it  was  hardly  expected  that  she  would  exhibit 
any  great  enthusiasm  for  it.  But  it  was  not  necessary  now  to 
wait  for  the  ratification  of  these  two  States.  The  eleven  ratifying 
States  were  able  to  put  the  new  government  into  operation  at 
once,  and  trust  to  the  course  of  events  to  bring  the  recalcitrants 
into  the  Union  sooner  or  later.  In  the  course  of  time  this  hap- 
pened. In  November,  1789,  North  Carolina  gave  her  adhesion, 
and  in  May  of  the  following  year  Rhode  Island  joined  the  Union, 
the  action  of  both  being  hastened,  perhaps,  by  the  threat  of  com- 
pulsion from  the  national  government  as  regards  the  payment  of 
their  share  of  the  national  debt  incurred  in  the  conduct  of  the  War 
of  Independence. 

The  great  struggle  was  now  over,  but  it  had  abundantly  dem- 
onstrated the  truth  of  John  Adams's  statement  that  the  Constitution 
was  extorted  as  a  grinding  necessity  from  a  reluctant  people.  For 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  a  written  Constitution 
applied  to  the  federal  form  of  government  had  been  established, 
and  although  framed  for  thirteen  agricultural  communities  with 
a  population  of  less  than  four  million  inhabitants,  it  has  proved 
equally  adapted  to  forty-six  powerful  commonwealths  with  a 
total  population  of  about  eighty  millions.  Many  objections  were 
raised  against  the  Constitution  in  the  State  conventions,  but  hardly 
any  of  them  have  proved  as  serious  as  predicted.  One  of  the 
most  general  of  these  was  the  lack  of  a  bill  of  rights  securing  to 
the  individual  a  sphere  of  liberty  upon  which  the  national  gov- 
ernment should  be  forbidden  to  encroach.  Accordingly,  several 
of  the  States  accompanied  their  ratifications  by  proposed  amend- 
ments embodying  a  number  of  important  prohibitions  upon  the 
power  of  Congress,  as  a  means  of  safeguarding  civil  liberty. 
Within  the  course  of  a  year  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution 
twelve  of  these  were  proposed  to  the  States  by  Congress,  and  ten 
of  them  were  promptly  ratified.  They  prohibit  the  national  gov- 
ernment from  abridging  the  freedom  of  conscience,  of  speech  or 
of  the  press ;  from  interfering  with  the  right  of  petition  or  of  assem- 
bly or  with  the  right  of  the  citizen  to  bear  arms;  from  quartering 
soldiers  on  the  inhabitants,  or  from  depriving  an  individual  of  life, 
liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.  They  furthermore 
guarantee  the  right  of  trial  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage,  of  due  process 
of  law  in  Federal  judicial  procedure,  together  with  a  number  of 
other  safeguards  for  the  benefit  of  persons  accused  of  crime.     With 


ESTABLISHMENT     OF     REPUBLIC      339 

1789 

two  comparatively  unimportant  exceptions  no  further  amendments 
were  made  until  after  the  Civil  War  in  spite  of  numerous  attempts 
to  bring  about  needed  changes.19 

19  Ames,  "  Proposed  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 


Chapter  XV 


THE    FIRST   EIGHT   YEARS    OF   THE   CONSTITUTION 

1789-1796 


GEORGE  WASHINGTON  ELECTED  PRESIDENT 

ON  September  13,  1788,  the  old  Congress  of  the  Confeder- 
ation made  formal  announcement  that  the  Constitution 
had  been  ratified  by  the  required  number  of  States,  and 
on  the  23d  of  the  same  month  it  held  its  final  session,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  but  two  States  being  present.  One  of  its  last  acts 
was  to  provide  for  putting  the  new  government  into  operation.  It 
was  enacted  that  the  Presidential  electors  should  be  chosen  on  the 
first  Wednesday  in  January,  1789;  that  they  should  meet  and  cast 
their  votes  for  President  and  Vice  President  on  the  first  Wednes- 
day in  February,  and  that  the  new  Congress  should  assemble  on 
the  first  Wednesday  in  March.  The  latter  date  happened  to  fall 
on  March  4,  and  that  day  was  subsequently  fixed  by  act  of  Con- 
gress as  the  beginning  of  each  new  Congress  and  of  each  Presiden- 
tial term.  Representatives  and  senators  were  duly  chosen  in  the 
various  States,  the  former  by  general  ticket  in  some  States,  by  dis- 
trict ticket  in  others,  and  at  the  same  time  Presidential  electors  were 
appointed  in  all  those  that  had  joined  the  Union,  except  New  York, 
where  they  was  a  delay.  The  choice  was  made  by  the  legislatures  in 
some  cases  and  by  popular  election  in  others.  When  the  electors 
met  at  their  various  State  capitals  in  February,  Washington  was 
the  only  man  who  was  thought  of  for  the  Presidency.  It  was  well 
understood  that  he  preferred  to  spend  his  remaining  days  on  his 
fine  estate  at  Mount  Vernon,  but  the  electors,  knowing  that  with 
him  personal  considerations  were  never  allowed  to  outweigh  public 
obligations,  unanimously  chose  him  President,  and  he  promptly  ac- 
cepted.1    Under  the  Constitution,  as  it  then  stood,  John  Adams, 

1  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  525- 
532. 

340 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  341 

1789 

who  received  the  next  highest  vote  to  Washington  in  the  electoral 
college,  thirty-four  out  of  sixty-nine,  was  elected  Vice  President. 

The  fourth  of  March  came  and  found  but  a  handful  of  senators 
and  representatives  in  New  York,  where  the  new  government  was 
to  make  its  beginning.  The  old  and  evil  habits  of  the  Confeder- 
ation still  clung  to  the  representatives  and  senators  under  the 
new  system,  and  the  two  houses  did  not  have  a  quorum  until  April 
6.  Some  of  the  members  had  long  distances  to  come;  the  means 
of  transportation  were  crude ;  the  season  was  unfavorable  for  travel, 
and,  besides,  the  results  of  the  elections  in  some  States  were  not 
yet  definitely  known.  Formal  announcement  was  then  made  to 
Washington  of  his  election,  and  of  the  organization  of  the  houses, 
by  Charles  Thomson,  the  old  secretary  of  the  Continental  Con- 
gress, who  had  proceeded  to  Mount  Vernon  for  that  purpose.  As 
soon  as  he  had  received  his  notifications  Washington  left  his  home 
and  journeyed  by  easy  stages  to  New  York,  receiving  a  continual 
ovation  from  the  people  in  every  town  through  which  he  passed, 
although  he  traveled  as  a  plain  citizen  in  his  private  carriage. 

Through  Philadelphia  he  rode  a  white  charger  accompanied 
by  an  escort  of  troops,  and  at  Trenton  he  passed  under  a  triumphal 
arch  supported  by  thirteen  pillars  and  bearing  the  inscription  "  The 
Defender  of  the  Mothers  will  be  the  Protector  of  the  Daughters." 
He  arrived  at  his  destination  on  April  23,  and  was  escorted  to  the 
house  which  Congress  had  provided  for  his  residence  by  Governor 
Clinton  and  his  staff,  a  committee  of  Congress  and  a  body  of 
militia,  while  the  air  rang  with  the  plaudits  of  the  throng  and  the 
boom  of  artillery.  On  the  30th,  one  week  later,  he  took  the  oath 
of  office,  and  was  duly  inaugurated  on  the  balcony  of  Federal  Hall, 
at  the  corner  of  Nassau  and  Wall  Streets.  The  ceremony  was 
simple  but  impressive.  The  President  was  dressed  in  a  dark 
brown  suit,  wore  white  silk  stockings,  shoes  with  silver  buckles, 
and  carried  a  dress  sword  at  his  side,  while  his  hair,  according 
to  the  prevailing  fashion,  was  powdered  and  gathered  in  a  bag 
behind  his  uncovered  head.  Chancellor  Livingston  administered 
the  oath,  and  then  lifting  his  hand  cried  out,  "  Long  live  George 
Washington,  President  of  the  United  States,"  and  the  people  re- 
sponded with  acclamation,  while  the  artillery  thundered  the  first 
of  the  Presidential  salutes.2 

2  For  a  contemporary  account  of  the  inauguration  of  Washington  see  Gris- 
wold,  "  Republican  Court." 


312  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789 

In  the  Congress,  which  Washington  found  waiting  him,  were 
many  distinguished  men,  most  of  whom  were  cordial  supporters  of 
the  great  experiment  which  was  now  to  be  undertaken.  Among 
them  were  some  who  had  been  chosen  because  they  were  friends 
to  the  Constitution  in  preference  to  those  already  distinguished,  but 
were  believed  to  be  opposed  to  or  lukewarm  toward  the  experiment 
thus  set  on  foot.  For  this  reason  Fisher  Ames,  an  eloquent  speaker 
and  able  lawyer,  had  defeated  Samuel  Adams  in  Boston,  for  the 
Flouse,  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  another  signer  of  the  Declaration,  was 
was  elected  only  on  a  pledge  of  support  to  the  Constitution.  The 
high  character  of  these  two  men  was  well  maintained  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  House  sent  by  the  other  States.  From  Connecticut 
came  Roger  Sherman,  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  the  older 
generation,  and  Jonathan  Trumbull,  former  governor  of  Con- 
necticut and  a  powerful  supporter  of  Washington  during  the  Revo- 
lution ;  Benson  and  Lawrence  represented  well  the  mercantile  inter- 
ests of  New  York ;  New  Jersey  sent  Elias  Boudinot,  a  noted  philan- 
thropist ;  Pennsylvania,  George  Clymer,  the  two  Muhlenbergs,  both 
Lutheran  ministers,  one  of  whom,  Frederick,  was  chosen  Speaker, 
and  Thomas  Fitzsimons,  a  wealthy  merchant;  South  Carolina, 
Thomas  Sumter,  a  famous  Revolutionary  soldier,  who  was  destined 
to  live  nearly  one  hundred  years,  and  Adamson  Smith,  soon  to 
prove  himself  one  of  the  ablest  debaters  in  the  House;  and  Georgia, 
Abraham  Baldwin,  of  New  England  antecedents,  already  well 
known  by  his  services  in  the  Philadelphia  convention,  and  James 
Jackson,  an  eccentric  man  who  had  served  as  secretary  of  the  con- 
vention. The  delegation  from  Virginia  was  not  a  very  strong 
one,  but  it  included  Madison,  one  of  the  great  champions  of  the 
Constitution,  who,  defeated  for  the  Senate,  had  been  elected  to  the 
lower  branch,  in  which  he  became  at  once  the  most  conspicuous 
figure. 

In  the  Senate  also  we  find  but  few  of  the  Revolutionary  lead- 
ers, although  Richard  Henry  Lee  and  Robert  Morris  were  both 
there.  Their  colleagues,  as  in  the  House,  were  chiefly  younger 
members  of  the  convention  or  noted  supporters  of  the  Constitution. 
Among  them  were  many  men  of  marked  ability,  and  some  who 
were  destined  to  great  distinction  in  the  future.  Such  were  John 
Langdon  of  New  Hampshire,  a  wealthy  man,  and  a  future  presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  who  in  after  years  put  aside  the  proffered  Vice 
Presidency  of  the  United  States;  Caleb  Strong  of  Massachusetts, 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  343 

1789 

.who  was  to  be  for  many  years  one  of  the  leading-  Federalists  and 
several  times  governor  of  the  State;  General  Schuyler  and  Rufus 
King  of  New  York,  the  latter  recently  removed  from  Massa- 
chusetts, and  destined  to  become  the  most  famous  member  of  the 
Senate;  Ellsworth,  the  future  Chief  Justice  from  Connecticut; 
Daniel  Carroll  from  Maryland,  a  wealthy  man  of  Roman  Cath- 
olic faith,  a  kinsman  of  the  more  celebrated  signer  of  the  Declar- 
ation; Pierce  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  and  William  Few  of 
Georgia.  On  the  whole  the  Congress  was  composed  of  able  and 
earnest  men,  greatly  in  advance  of  the  decrepit  Assembly  under  the 
Confederation.  Politically  it  was  strongly  Federalist,  the  only 
senators  chosen  avowedly  as  opponents  of  the  Constitution  being 
Lee  and  his  colleague,  William  Grayson,  from  Virginia. 

Among  the  distinguished  names  which  we  do  not  find  on  the 
rolls  of  either  house  in  the  first  Congress  under  the  Constitution 
are  those  of  Hamilton,  Jay,  Wilson,  George  Clinton,  Samuel 
Adams,  Luther  Martin,  Patrick  Henry  and  the  South  Carolina 
Pinckneys.  Some  of  these  being  Anti-Federalists,  like  Adams, 
had  been  defeated  by  Federalist  candidates;  others,  like  Clinton, 
preferred  to  hold  State  offices.  Some,  like  Luther  Martin,  had 
retired  from  politics;  while  still  others,  like  Henry,  had  lost  their 
political  influence  and  were  kept  at  home.  After  taking  the  oath 
of  office  Washington  pronounced  a  brief  inaugural  address,  in 
which  he  alluded  feelingly  and  sincerely,  no  doubt,  to  the  hope 
which  he  had  entertained  of  being  allowed  to  spend  his  declining 
years  in  retirement,  suggested  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
in  accordance  with  the  proper  demand  as  revealed  in  the  recent 
State  conventions,  and  with  becoming  modesty  announced  that  he 
desired  no  compensation  for  his  services  further  than  the  defrayal 
of  actual  expenses  incurred  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties. 
According  to  the  British  parliamentary  custom,  both  houses  of 
Congress  drew  up  formal  replies  to  the  Presidential  address  and 
waited  upon  him  in  turn,  the  President  of  the  Senate  presenting 
the  address  of  the  Seriate,  the  Speaker  of  the  House  that  of  the 
latter  body,  and  to  both  the  President  made  a  brief  reply. 


344  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789 

II 

ORGANIZATION    OF    THE    NEW    GOVERNMENT 

As  soon  as  the  ceremonies  of  the  inauguration  were  over  Con- 
gress set  to  work  in  earnest  upon  the  great  task  before  it,  noth- 
ing less  than  converting  the  bare  clauses  of  a  written  document 
into  a  living  organism,  a  real  and  effective  government.  For  this 
it  had  to  provide  at  the  start  the  very  framework  of  administra- 
tion by  which  alone  all  other  laws  could  be  enforced  and  executed. 

In  organizing  the  administrative  departments  Congress  de- 
cided that  the  employment  of  boards  and  commissions,  as  had  been 
the  practice  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  should  no  longer 
be  resorted  to,  but  that  departments,  each  with  a  single  head,  should 
be  created  instead.  It  was  provided  that  there  should  be  three  of 
these,  to  have  charge  respectively  of  foreign  affairs,  war  and  finance, 
each  under  the  direction  of  an  officer  called  a  secretary.3  As  head 
of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  name  of  which  was 
changed  before  the  end  of  the  session  to  the  Department  of  State, 
the  President  chose  Thomas  Jefferson,  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  at  the  moment  minister  to  France,  from 
where  he  soon  returned.  In  addition  to  the  conduct  of  foreign 
affairs  the  Department  of  State  was  entrusted  with  certain  purely 
domestic  duties,  such  as  the  custody  of  the  great  seal,  the  publica- 
tion and  promulgation  of  the  laws,  and  the  management  of  busi- 
ness relating  to  public  lands  and  patents.  When  he  came  to  select 
a  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Washington  turned  naturally  first 
to  Robert  Morris,  the  "  financier  of  the  Revolution,"  but  Morris 
declined  to  serve,  and  recommended  Alexander  Hamilton,  who  was 
appointed.  The  law  organizing  the  Treasury  Department  was  very 
elaborate,  and  contained  various  provisions  designed  to  insure  the 
safe  keeping  of  the  public  funds,  and  to  fix  the  responsibility  of 
the  Secretary.  For  this  purpose  it  required,  among  other  things, 
the  Secretary  to  make  annual  reports  to  Congress,  while  the  other 
heads  of  departments  were  left  to  report  to  the  President.  Gen- 
eral Knox  of  Massachuetts,  a  gallant  Revolutionary  soldier,  and 
for  some  time  head  of  the  Board  of  War  under  the  Confederation, 
was  appointed  Secretary  of  War,  and  was  also  given  charge  of 
naval  affairs.     Edmund  Randolph,  late  Governor  of  Virginia,  was 

3  Schouler,   "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.   i.  p.   104. 


WASHINGTON     TAKES     THE     OATH     OF     OFFICE     AS     FIRST     PRESIDENT     OF     THE 

UNITED    STATES,    ON   THE   BALCONY   OF   THE   OLD   CITY    HALL,    NEW    YORK 

Drawing  by  J.  R.   Wxles 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  345 

1789 

made  Attorney-General,  with  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  although  no 
regular  Department  of  Justice  was  as  yet  organized,  and  for  a  good 
many  years  the  duties  of  the  Attorney  General  were  inconsiderable. 
The  post  office  continued  under  the  management  of  a  Postmaster 
General,  who,  however,  did  not  become  a  Cabinet  officer  until  many 
years  later.  During  the  debate  on  the  organization  of  the  executive 
departments  the  question  arose  whether  the  President  alone  could 
remove  an  officer  whose  appointment  required  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  the  Constitution  being  silent  on  that  point.  The 
Senate  insisted  that  its  advice  and  consent  was  as  necessary  to  re- 
move as  to  appoint,  while  the  House  contended  for  the  independence 
of  the  President  in  such  cases.  The  question  was  finally  settled 
by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice  President  in  favor  of  the  right 
of  the  executive  to  remove  without  restraint,  and  this  continued  to 
be  the  rule  until  changed  by  Congress  as  a  result  of  its  unfortunate 
breach  with  President  Johnson  in  1867.4  The  heads  of  the  execu- 
tive departments,  which  have  now  increased  to  nine,  came  in  a 
short  time  to  be  known  collectively  as  the  Cabinet,  a  body  quite 
unknown  to  the  Constitution  or  to  the  laws,  but  now  well  established 
in  practice  and  importance,  although  without  any  such  share  in 
legislation  as  the  European  and  British  ministries  possess.  The 
members  do  not  have  seats  in  either  house  of  Congress,  have  no 
right  to  participate  in  the  Congressional  debates,  nor  is  their  tenure 
affected  in  the  slightest  by  any  adverse  vote,  or  by  the  resolu- 
tions of  either  house.  At  first  Washington  consulted  with  the 
heads  of  departments  as  single  individuals,  and  usually  by  writing; 
but  toward  the  end  of  his  first  term  the  situation  caused  by  the 
outbreak  of  war  between  England  and  France  led  him  to  convene 
the  members  for  the  purpose  of  general  consultation.  This  estab- 
lished the  precedent  of  collective  consultation  which  has  since  been 
followed  by  all  his  successors. 

Another  question  which  arose  in  connection  with  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  executive  departments,  and  which  caused,  prolonged  and 
animated  discussion  in  both  houses,  related  to  the  title  by  which 
the  President  was  to  be  addressed.  Again  the  two  houses  differed, 
the  Senate  preferring  the  pompous  title  of  "  His  High  Mightiness, 
the  President  of  the  United  States  and  Protector  of  their  Liberties," 
—  which  it  was  understood  the  President  desired  —  while  the 
House  contended  for  a  less  ostentatious  one.  The  result  was  that 
4  Curtis,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  142-145. 


346  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789 

no  form  whatever  was  agreed  upon,  and  the  title  of  the  chief  magis- 
trate is  simply  "  The  President  of  the  United  States,"  and  he  can 
properly  be  addressed  in  no  other  way.  Notwithstanding  Wash- 
ington's declaration  that  he  desired  no  fixed  salary,  Congress  en- 
acted that  the  compensation  attached  to  the  office  should  be  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars  per  year,  and  the  style  in  which  our  first  Presi- 
dent lived  was  such  that  his  expenses  did  not  fall  below  that  sum.5 
The  salary  of  the  Vice  President  was  fixed  at  five  thousand  dollars 
per  year,  that  of  Senators  and  Representatives  at  six  dollars  per 
day,  with  double  pay  for  the  Speaker,  and  the  yearly  salary  of 
the  Chief  Justice  at  four  thousand  dollars. 

The  third  branch  of  the  government  to  be  organized  and  put 
into  operation  was  the  judiciary.  The  Constitution  had  provided 
that  there  should  be  a  Supreme  Court,  but  had  left  the  details  of 
organization  to  Congress,  as  well  as  the  creation  and  organization 
of  the  inferior  courts.  By  the  act  of  September  24,  1789,  drafted 
by  Senator  Oliver  Ellsworth,  wrho  had  been  a  member  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  and  was  destined  later  to  become  Chief  Jus- 
tice of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Federal  courts  were  organized  on 
substantially  the  same  basis  as  at  present.  Under  this  law,  one 
of  the  most  remarkable  of  many  acts  in  this  period  of  great  con- 
structive legislation,  the  Supreme  Court  was  to  consist  of  six 
judges,  and  John  Jay  of  New  York,  recently  head  of  the  old  De- 
partment of  Foreign  Affairs,  was  chosen  by  Washington  to  be 
the  first  Chief  Justice,  and  of  him  it  has  been  well  said  that  when 
the  ermine  fell  upon  his  shoulders  it  touched  a  man  as  pure  and 
spotless  as  itself. 

Two  grades  of  inferior  courts  were  also  created,  namely,  the 
district  and  circuit  courts.  The  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  dis- 
trict courts,  each  of  which  was  held  by  a  single  district  judge,  was 
as  a  rule  coterminous  with  one  of  the  States.  The  circuit  courts 
were  to  be  held  by  a  supreme  justice  and  a  district  judge  sitting 
together,  no  circuit  judges  having  been  provided  for.  Prosecuting 
attorneys  and  marshals  were  to  be  appointed,  and  brief  rules  regu- 
lating the  procedure  of  the  courts  were  enacted.  To  secure  uni- 
formity in  the  interpretation  of  federal  law,  and  to  insure  its 
supremacy  throughout  the  Union,  as  the  Constitution  required,  ap- 
peals were  to  be  allowed  to  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  from 
the  supreme  courts  of  the  States,  where  a  decision  had  been  ren- 
5  Schouler,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.   p.   116. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  349 

1789-1793 

ness  had  long  since  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  original  holders 
into  the  hands  of  speculators  at  varying  rates  of  discount.  In- 
deed, while  his  report  was  being  read,  agents  for  Eastern  capital- 
ists were  hurrying  to  remote  parts  of  the  country  to  buy  up  cer- 
tificates whose  value  a  day  later  had  increased  fifty  per  cent. 
Hence  payment  at  par  would  only  reward  those  who  were  least 
deserving.  If  the  certificates  could  be  scaled  down  the  speculators 
would  still  reap  a  handsome  profit,  while  there  would  be  an  enor- 
mous saving  to  the  government.  Madison  proposed  that  an  effort 
be  made  to  ascertain  what  the  present  holders  had  paid  for  the 
certificates,  that  this  amount  be  paid  to  them,  and  that  the  face 
value  should  be  paid  only  to  the  original  holders.  To  all  argu- 
ments against  payment  in  full  Hamilton  replied  that  it  was  bad 
faith  for  the  government  to  pay  less  than  it  had  solemnly  promised 
to  pay,  and  that  if  in  the  future  the  credit  of  the  nation  was  to 
be  strong,  the  record  of  the  government  for  keeping  faith  with  its 
creditors  must  be  unimpeachable.  Hamilton's  view  was  accepted 
by  Congress  after  a  spirited  contest  and  much  debate,  and  the  fund- 
ing scheme  with  the  faith  of  the  nation  inviolably  preserved  was 
carried  through.  The  example  which  the  new  nation  thus  set  un- 
der the  direction  of  its  first  great  finance  minister,  of  keeping  full 
faith  with  its  creditors  has  been  of  incalculable  aid  to  the  Republic 
in  times  of  great  crises,  when  the  government  was  compelled  to 
borrow  large  sums,  besides  teaching  a  most  valuable  lesson  of 
political  ethics. 

But  Hamilton's  policy  did  not  end  here.  He  proposed  to  the 
astonishment  of  Congress  and  the  country,  that  the  national  gov- 
ernment should  assume  the  payment  of  the  outstanding  State  debts. 
The  secretary  argued  that  these  debts  had  for  the  most  part  been 
incurred  in  a  common  cause,  and  as  the  States  had  surrendered  the 
power  of  laying  duties  on  imports,  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  their 
revenue  at  the  time  the  debts  were  incurred,  the  national  govern- 
ment should  now  assume  the  payment  of  them.  This  final  proposi- 
tion, which  not  only  was  wise  financially,  as  it  was  intended  to  be, 
but  was  also  a  powerful  instrument  of  consolidating  the  government 
and  developing  the  national  sentiment,  excited  a  most  bitter  opposi- 
tion, far  more  than  had  been  aroused  by  any  of  the  preceding 
measures,  and  the  bill  was  at  first  defeated  in  the  House  by  a 
majority  of  two  votes.  Some  of  the  States  like  Virginia,  which 
had  already  arranged  for  the  liquidation  of  their  war  debts,  natural- 


350  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789-1793 

ly  opposed  assumption ;  others  like  New  Hampshire  and  Maryland, 
which  had  small  debts,  opposed  it  for  a  similar  reason;  while  those 
like  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  South  Carolina,  which  had 
large  debts,  enthusiastically  favored  the  assumption  scheme.  Still 
others  were  divided  in  their  opinions. 

While  the  great  financial  policy  was  being  carried  out,  the 
question  of  selecting  a  permanent  site  for  the  National  Capital  had 
been  hotly  discussed  and  had  awakened  great  feeling  and  many 
jealousies.  The  Northern  members  wished  to  have  the  capital 
somewhere  in  the  North,  preferably  at  New  York  or  Philadelphia, 
while  the  Southern  members  were  eager  to  carry  it  southwards. 
But  as  the  supporters  of  a  Northern  capital  were  slightly  in  the 
majority  it  was  evident  that  the  Southern  members  would  be  out- 
voted unless  a  deal  of  some  kind  could  be  made.  Hamilton,  to 
whom  the  assumption  project,  far-reaching  and  essential  to  the 
new  government,  was  infinitely  dearer  than  the  situation  of  the 
capital,  proposed  to  Jefferson  a  means  of  settling  both  questions. 
Jefferson  was  to  induce  a  sufficient  number  of  his  Southern  friends 
to  vote  for  the  assumption  measure  in  return  for  which  Hamilton 
was  to  secure  Northern  votes  for  a  Southern  capital.  The  bar- 
gain was  struck ;  the  bill  for  the  assumption  of  State  debts  amount- 
ing to  $21,500,000  passed  both  houses,  and  it  was  agreed  that  for 
the  next  ten  years  the  seat  of  government  should  be  at  Philadelphia, 
after  which  it  should  be  placed  permanently  on  the  Potomac  River.9 
Shortly  thereafter  a  body  of  commissioners,  at  the  head  of  which 
was  President  Washington,  selected  the  site,  the  land  was  acquired 
by  purchase,  and  Major  l'Enfant,  a  French  engineer,  who  had 
been  employed  for  the  purpose,  laid  out  the  plan  of  a  great  "  Fed- 
eral city  "  with  magnificent  avenues,  parks,  public  fountains,  and 
stately  edifices. 

Having  carried  through  his  schemes  for  raising  revenue  and 
for  reorganizing  the  national  finances,  Hamilton  next  proposed 
the  establishment  of  a  national  bank.  He  urged  the  measure  upon 
Congress  in  one  of  his  famous  reports  as  a  means  of  aiding  the 
government  in  negotiating  loans,  effecting  exchanges  and  otherwise 
carrying  on  its  financial  business,  besides  supplying  the  country 
with  a  stable  and  useful  paper  currency.  The  capital  stock  of  the 
proposed  bank  was  to  be  $  10,000,000,  of  which  the  government  was 

0  Monaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  574- 
581. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  349 

1789-1793 

ness  had  long  since  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  original  holders 
into  the  hands  of  speculators  at  varying  rates  of  discount.  In- 
deed, while  his  report  was  being  read,  agents  for  Eastern  capital- 
ists were  hurrying  to  remote  parts  of  the  country  to  buy  up  cer- 
tificates whose  value  a  day  later  had  increased  fifty  per  cent. 
Hence  payment  at  par  would  only  reward  those  who  were  least 
deserving.  If  the  certificates  could  be  scaled  down  the  speculators 
would  still  reap  a  handsome  profit,  while  there  would  be  an  enor- 
mous saving  to  the  government.  Madison  proposed  that  an  effort 
be  made  to  ascertain  what  the  present  holders  had  paid  for  the 
certificates,  that  this  amount  be  paid  to  them,  and  that  the  face 
value  should  be  paid  only  to  the  original  holders.  To  all  argu- 
ments against  payment  in  full  Hamilton  replied  that  it  was  bad 
faith  for  the  government  to  pay  less  than  it  had  solemnly  promised 
to  pay,  and  that  if  in  the  future  the  credit  of  the  nation  was  to 
be  strong,  the  record  of  the  government  for  keeping  faith  with  its 
creditors  must  be  unimpeachable.  Hamilton's  view  was  accepted 
by  Congress  after  a  spirited  contest  and  much  debate,  and  the  fund- 
ing scheme  with  the  faith  of  the  nation  inviolably  preserved  was 
carried  through.  The  example  which  the  new  nation  thus  set  un- 
der the  direction  of  its  first  great  finance  minister,  of  keeping  full 
faith  with  its  creditors  has  been  of  incalculable  aid  to  the  Republic 
in  times  of  great  crises,  when  the  government  was  compelled  to 
borrow  large  sums,  besides  teaching  a  most  valuable  lesson  of 
political  ethics. 

But  Hamilton's  policy  did  not  end  here.  He  proposed  to  the 
astonishment  of  Congress  and  the  country,  that  the  national  gov- 
ernment should  assume  the  payment  of  the  outstanding  State  debts. 
The  secretary  argued  that  these  debts  had  for  the  most  part  been 
incurred  in  a  common  cause,  and  as  the  States  had  surrendered  the 
power  of  laying  duties  on  imports,  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  their 
revenue  at  the  time  the  debts  were  incurred,  the  national  govern- 
ment should  now  assume  the  payment  of  them.  This  final  proposi- 
tion, which  not  only  was  wise  financially,  as  it  was  intended  to  be, 
but  was  also  a  powerful  instrument  of  consolidating  the  government 
and  developing  the  national  sentiment,  excited  a  most  bitter  opposi- 
tion, far  more  than  had  been  aroused  by  any  of  the  preceding 
measures,  and  the  bill  was  at  first  defeated  in  the  House  by  a 
majority  of  two  votes.  Some  of  the  Stares  like  Virginia,  which 
had  already  arranged  for  the  liquidation  of  their  war  debts,  natural- 


850  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789-1793 

ly  opposed  assumption ;  others  like  New  Hampshire  and  Maryland, 
which  had  small  debts,  opposed  it  for  a  similar  reason;  while  those 
like  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  South  Carolina,  which  had 
large  debts,  enthusiastically  favored  the  assumption  scheme.  Still 
others  were  divided  in  their  opinions. 

While  the  great  financial  policy  was  being  carried  out,  the 
question  of  selecting  a  permanent  site  for  the  National  Capital  had 
been  hotly  discussed  and  had  awakened  great  feeling  and  many 
jealousies.  The  Northern  members  wished  to  have  the  capital 
somewhere  in  the  North,  preferably  at  New  York  or  Philadelphia, 
while  the  Southern  members  were  eager  to  carry  it  southwards. 
But  as  the  supporters  of  a  Northern  capital  were  slightly  in  the 
majority  it  was  evident  that  the  Southern  members  would  be  out- 
voted unless  a  deal  of  some  kind  could  be  made.  Hamilton,  to 
whom  the  assumption  project,  far-reaching  and  essential  to  the 
new  government,  was  infinitely  dearer  than  the  situation  of  the 
capital,  proposed  to  Jefferson  a  means  of  settling  both  questions. 
Jefferson  was  to  induce  a  sufficient  number  of  his  Southern  friends 
to  vote  for  the  assumption  measure  in  return  for  which  Hamilton 
was  to  secure  Northern  votes  for  a  Southern  capital.  The  bar- 
gain was  struck ;  the  bill  for  the  assumption  of  State  debts  amount- 
ing to  $21,500,000  passed  both  houses,  and  it  was  agreed  that  for 
the  next  ten  years  the  seat  of  government  should  be  at  Philadelphia, 
after  which  it  should  be  placed  permanently  on  the  Potomac  River.9 
Shortly  thereafter  a  body  of  commissioners,  at  the  head  of  which 
was  President  Washington,  selected  the  site,  the  land  was  acquired 
by  purchase,  and  Major  l'Enfant,  a  French  engineer,  who  had 
been  employed  for  the  purpose,  laid  out  the  plan  of  a  great  "  Fed- 
eral city  "  with  magnificent  avenues,  parks,  public  fountains,  and 
stately  edifices. 

Having  carried  through  his  schemes  for  raising  revenue  and 
for  reorganizing  the  national  finances,  Hamilton  next  proposed 
the  establishment  of  a  national  bank.  He  urged  the  measure  upon 
Congress  in  one  of  his  famous  reports  as  a  means  of  aiding  the 
government  in  negotiating  loans,  effecting  exchanges  and  otherwise 
carrying  on  its  financial  business,  besides  supplying  the  country 
with  a  stable  and  useful  paper  currency.  The  capital  stock  of  the 
proposed  bank  was  to  be  $10,000,000,  of  which  the  government  was 

9  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  pp.  574- 
581. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  351 

1789-1793 

to  own  one-fifth ;  one-fifth  of  the  directors  were  to  be  appointed  by 
the  government,  and  they  were  required  to  make  periodical  reports 
of  all  the  operations  of  the  bank.  This  proposal  to  establish  a 
government  bank  aroused  vehement  opposition,  both  in  and  out 
of  Congress,  among  those  who  feared  the  association  of  the  govern- 
ment with  banking.  Moreover  there  were  many  who  denied  the 
necessity  of  such  an  institution  to  furnish  a  circulating  medium 
because  of  the  many  State  banks  in  existence,  while  there  were  not 
a  few  who  doubted  the  constitutionality  of  such  a  measure.  The 
latter  insisted  that  as  the  Constitution  nowhere  empowered  Con- 
gress to  embark  in  such  an  enterprise,  it  had  no  right  to  do  so. 

To  the  Constitutional  arguments  Hamilton  replied  that  Con- 
gress was  empowered  to  do  anything  which  was  "  necessary  and 
proper  "  to  carry  into  effect  any  power  expressly  delegated  by  the 
Constitution  to  Congress.  Among  the  powers  expressly  delegated 
were  the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  revenues,  the  borrowing 
of  money  and  the  payment  of  the  debts  of  the  United  States.  A 
bank,  he  argued,  was  a  proper  agency  for  these  purposes,  as  well 
as  for  conducting  other  fiscal  operations  of  the  government,  al- 
though, he  admitted,  it  was  not  absolutely  indispensable.  Here  was 
involved  for  the  first  time  the  doctrine  of  "  implied  powers  " ;  that 
is,  powers  drawn  by  implication  from  those  expressly  conferred  by 
the  Constitution  on  Congress.  According  to  this  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion the  Constitution  is  not  to  be  construed  strictly  as  a  legal  docu- 
ment, but  in  the  light  of  the  general  purposes  for  which  the  govern- 
ment was  created,  due  emphasis  being  given  to  those  powers  which, 
while  not  expressly  conferred  by  the  Constitution,  yet  exist  by  rea- 
sonable implication.  The  advocates  of  this  theory  were  popularly 
called  "  loose  constructionists."10 

Those  who  opposed  the  establishment  of  the  bank  contended 
that  if  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  national  government  by  the 
Constitution  were  not  strictly  construed,  the  whole  theory  of  the 
relation  between  the  national  government  and  the  State  govern- 
ments would  be  destroyed,  since  the  powers  of  the  former  might  be 
magnified  and  extended  almost  without  limit  at  the  expense  of  the 
latter.  It  was  a  view  which,  if  put  into  practice,  would  lead  to 
danger,  they  said,  because  it  opened  the  way  for  Federal  usurpa- 
tion with  its  accompanying  possibilities  of  revolution.  The  only 
safe  method  of  interpretation  was  to  follow  literally  the  plain  Ian- 
10  Lodge,    "  Alexander    Hamilton,"    pp.    98-105. 


352  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789-1793 

guage  of  the  Constitution,  and  if  no  express  authority  could  be 
found  for  the  exercise  by  the  national  government  of  the  power 
claimed,  it  should  be  presumed  to  have  been  left  with  the  States 
in  accordance  with  the  constitutional  principle  that  all  powers  not 
delegated  to  the  national  government  nor  prohibited  to  the  States 
are  reserved  to  the  States.  The  advocates  of  this  school  of  inter- 
pretation came  to  be  popularly  known  as  "  strict  constructionists." 
Its  founder  and  ablest  exponent  was  Thomas  Jefferson.  So  it  came 
to  pass  that  when  Hamilton  in  an  argument,  still  unsurpassed  in 
power  of  statement,  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  "  implied  powers,"  he 
not  only  laid  the  foundation  for  party  divisions,  but  for  two  schools 
of  constitutional  and  political  thought.  The  conflict  between  these 
schools  and  their  parties  has  made  the  political  and  constitutional 
history  of  the  United  States,  and  once  brought  the  Union  to  the 
verge  of  destruction  by  civil  war.  The  national  school,  which 
Hamilton  founded,  has  triumphed  and  the  national  principle  is  now 
supreme.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  States  embodying 
the  great  principle  of  local  self-government  are  essential  to  our 
national  existence. 

In  the  case  of  the  national  bank  the  liberal  constructionists 
won  the  day.  The  bill  passed  both  houses  by  a  small  majority,  and 
it  is  not  without  significance  as  showing  the  geographical  distribu- 
tion of  the  two  schools  of  constitutional  interpretation  that  the 
Northern  members  almost  unanimously  favored  the  bank,  while 
the  Southern  members  almost  solidly  opposed  it.11  When  the  bill 
was  presented  to  the  President  for  approval  he  was  apparently  im- 
pressed with  the  importance  of  the  constitutional  questions  at  issue, 
and  requested  the  opinions  in  writing  of  his  Cabinet.  Hamilton, 
of  course,  defended  the  measure  with  all  the  power  which  he  could 
command,  and  his  argument  remains,  as  has  been  said,  one  of  the 
ablest  expositions  in  existence  of  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers. 
Jefferson,  on  the  other  hand,  urged  the  President  to  veto  the  bill, 
as  neither  a  "  necessary  "  nor  "  proper  "  measure,  and  his  argu- 
ment against  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank  is  one  of  the  best 
expositions  of  the  theory  of  strict  construction.  But  Hamilton's 
argument  prevailed  with  the  President,  and  the  bill  was  signed.12 

The  period  for  which  the  bank  was  chartered  was  twenty 
years.     It  was  established  at  Philadelphia  with  branches  in  all  the 

11  McMaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  32. 
''-' Schouler,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.   177. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  353 

1789-1793 

principal  cities  of  the  Union.  The  four-fifths  of  the  stock  allowed 
to  the  public  was  quickly  subscribed.  Besides  doing  a  general 
banking  business,  the  bank  served  as  a  sort  of  fiscal  agent  for  the 
United  States,  and  on  numerous  occasions  was  of  great  service  to 
the  government  in  placing  its  loans  and  aiding  it  to  meet  its  obliga- 
tions. The  banknotes  supplied  a  sound  national  currency;  they 
were  receivable  for  all  debts,  taxes  and  duties;  and  were  accepted 
on  a  par  with  gold  everywhere  throughout  the  world.  Probably 
no  institution  ever  created  by  our  government  better  fulfilled  the 
purposes  of  its  founders;  but  those  who  believed  that  it  was  a 
monopoly  unwarranted  by  the  Constitution  and  represented  an  en- 
croachment upon  the  rights  of  the  States  increased  in  numbers,  until 
presently  the  bank  had  more  enemies  than  friends.  In  this  con- 
nection it  ought  to  be  repeated  that  aside  from  financial  considera- 
tions Hamilton  had  ulterior  motives  in  wishing  the  national  gov- 
ernment to  engage  in  the  banking  business  and  to  assume  the  State 
debts.  He  saw  clearly  that  both  would  strengthen  the  national 
government  by  rallying  to  its  support  the  moneyed  interests  of  the 
country  and  by  getting  the  people  generally  accustomed  to  federal 
laws  and  federal  institutions,  and  also  interested  in  government 
securities  as  an  investment.  These  motives,  however,  were  strictly 
honorable  and  stand  as  a  silent  tribute  to  his  political  sagacity  and 
wise  statesmanship. 

A  fifth  and  final  project  in  the  great  financial  policy  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  the  establishment  of  a  national  mint 
and  the  creation  of  a  uniform  metallic  currency.  During  the 
period  of  the  Confederation,  Gouverneur  Morris  had  prepared  a 
plan  for  a  decimal  system  of  currency,  but  it  was  never  adopted. 
At  the  time  the  Constitution  went  into  operation,  therefore,  no  uni- 
form national  currency  existed,  a  fact  which  caused  great  incon- 
venience to  business  and  hampered  trade  very  considerably.  The 
metallic  money  in  common  use  consisted  of  a  variety  of  English, 
French  and  Spanish  coins — shillings,  crowns,  dollars,  moidores, 
joes,  half-joes,  pistareens,  and  picayunes,  while  the  paper  currency 
of  the  country  consisted  of  thirteen  kinds  of  notes  issued  by  as 
many  different  States.  Now  that  there  was  a  national  govern- 
ment expressly  empowered  by  the  Constitution  to  coin  money  and 
regulate  the  value  thereof,  the  want  of  a  uniform  Federal  cur- 
rency could  easily  be  supplied.  The  plan  sketched  by  Gouverneur 
Morris  and  which  had  been  improved  upon  as  to  certain  details  by 


354  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789-1793 

Jefferson  was  now  made  the  basis  of  Hamilton's  report  to  Congress 
and  was  adopted  as  law.  A  national  mint  was  established  at 
Philadelphia,  and  later,  as  the  demand  for  an  increase  in  the 
volume  of  coin  grew,  mints  were  established  elsewhere. 

The  system  of  coinage  adopted  provided  for  a  gold  and  silver 
standard  with  the  dollar  as  the  unit,  together  with  various  de- 
nominations arranged  according  to  the  decimal  scale  —  the  ratio 
between  the  two  metals  being  fixed  at  fifteen  to  one.  That  is,  the 
weight  of  the  silver  coins  was  made  fifteen  times  that  of  the  cor- 
responding gold  coins  of  the  same  denomination,  the  market  price 
of  an  ounce  of  gold  at  the  time  being  fifteen  times  that  of  an  ounce, 
of  silver.  In  other  words,  the  mint  ratio  was  made  to  correspond 
to  the  market  ratio.  But  the  difficulty  of  maintaining  this  ratio 
was  soon  discovered,  since  it  involved  the  fixing  by  statute  of  the 
price  of  a  commodity.  As  a  result  of  the  law  of  supply  and  de- 
mand, the  price  of  gold  soon  began  to  increase  so  that  it  was 
really  worth  sixteen  times  as  much  as  the  same  quantity  of  silver. 
The  market  ratio  no  longer  corresponded  to  the  mint  ratio,  and  the 
decree  of  the  government  could  not  make  it  so  without  increasing 
the  weight  of  the  silver  coin  or  decreasing  the  weight  of  gold. 
Gold  was  undervalued,  and  it  soon  disappeared  from  circulation, 
its  place  being  taken  by  the  cheaper  metal,  silver.  It  thus  happened 
that  gold  was  more  valuable  as  bullion  than  as  coin;  consequently 
it  was  exported  or  used  in  the  arts,  so  that  for  a  good  many  years, 
instead  of  a  double  standard,  we  really  had  a  single  silver  stan- 
dard.13 But  the  advantages  of  having  a  uniform  metallic  cur- 
rency easy  of  computation  far  outweighed  the  inconveniences  flow- 
ing from  the  difficulties  of  adjusting  the  ratio. 

The  establishment  of  a  mint  and  the  creation  of  a  system  of 
coinage  completed  Hamilton's  financial  program.  But  he  also 
made  a  report  on  manufactures  in  which  he  set  forth  an  elaborate 
scheme  for  the  protection  and  encouragement  of  manufacturing  in- 
dustries by  means  of  tariffs  and  bounties,  and  although  nothing 
was  done  at  the  time  to  carry  his  proposals  into  effect  this  famous 
discussion  of  "  Free  Trade.  Protection  and  the  Diversification  of 
Industry  "  became  later  the  foundation  of  the  "  American  System," 
and  made  protective  duties  the  national  policy.  Hamilton's  ser- 
vices to  the  United  States  in  reorganizing  its  finances  and  estab- 
lishing the  public  credit  were  of  the  first  order.  No  nation  ever 
13  Laii^hlin,    "  Political   Economy,"   p.    307. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  355 

1789-1793 

started  upon  its  career  with  a  greater  constructive  genius  as  one 
of  its  founders  and  guides.  It  was  due  to  him  more  than  to  any 
other  man  that  the  foundations  of  our  government  in  all  financial 
matters  were  firmly  laid  in  honesty  and  integrity.  As  an  or- 
ganizer he  was  by  far  the  most  conspicuous  leader  in  the  govern- 
ment during  its  first  years,  and  his  dominant  influence  was  ap- 
parent in  every  policy  adopted  by  Washington's  administration, 
whether  at  home  or  abroad. 

With  financial  confidence  thus  established,  with  public  and 
private  credit  restored  and  a  stable  government  in  operation,  un- 
certainty and  distrust  disappeared.  Trade  among  the  States  was 
now  unhampered ;  the  volume  of  exports  increased  rapidly,  busi- 
ness expanded  and  signs  of  a  healthy  prosperity  were  everywhere 
visible.  The  Federal  census  of  1790  showed  a  population  of  nearly 
four  million  inhabitants,  and  settlers  were  flocking  to  the  North- 
west in  large  numbers.  The  revenues  of  the  government  were  ade- 
quate, its  obligations  were  met  with  punctuality,  domestic  tran- 
quillity existed  throughout  the  Union;  from  every  point  of  view, 
in  fact,  the  government  under  the  Constitution  had  proved  to  be 
an  undoubted  success  and  the  prospects  for  the  future  career  of 
the  nation  were  of  the  most  favorable  kind. 

But  the  financial  measures  which  Hamilton  had  proposed  and 
carried  through  had  given  rise  to  divisions  which  soon  culminated 
in  the  organization  of  two  hostile  political  parties.14  The  debates 
on  the  funding  scheme,  and  especially  those  on  the  bank  bill,  the 
bill  for  the  assumption  of  the  State  debts  and  the  excise  scheme 
had  developed  a  wide  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the  method 
of  interpreting  the  Constitution  so  far  as  the  power  and  scope  of  the 
national  government  were  concerned.  The  two  leaders  of  the  par- 
ties thus  produced,  Hamilton  and  Jefferson,  were,  to  use  the  latter's 
own  expression,  soon  "  pitted  against  each  other  like  two  fighting 
cocks."  Jefferson,  fresh  from  the  ultra-democratic  society  of  revo- 
lutionary Paris,  his  head  filled  with  Jacobin  ideas,  looked  with  aver- 
sion upon  the  centralizing  schemes  of  Hamilton  and  the  aristocratic 
ways  of  the  Federalists,  as  the  followers  of  Washington  and  Hamil- 
ton were  now  called.  He  was  by  nature  suspicious,  and  soon  came 
to  believe  that  the  Federalists,  under  the  leadership  of  Hamilton, 
were  plotting  to  overthrow  the  Republic  and  set  up  a  monarchy. 

14  Lodge,   "  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,"  pp.   136-152. 


356  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1789-1793 

Seizing  upon  bits  of  conversation  and  current  gossip,  he  magnified 
them  into  full-fledged  conspiracies  against  the  Union. 

The  Federalists  wished  the  government  to  be  conducted  with 
more  or  less  ceremony  and  dignity,  somewhat  after  the  British 
fashion,  while  Jefferson  and  his  followers,  who  at  first  could  find  no 
better  name  than  Anti-Federalists,  but  who  later  called  themselves 
Republicans,  preferred  an  administration  of  extreme  democratic 
simplicity.  Hamilton  was  obliged  to  carry  out  his  programme 
against  the  opposition  of  his  ministerial  colleague,  whom  he  de- 
nounced in  due  time  as  a  demagogue  and  a  hypocrite  —  "a  man 
of  profound  ambition  and  violent  passions,  seeking  the  Presidency." 
Secret  at  first,  Jefferson's  hostility  very  soon  came  to  the  surface; 
he  denounced  Hamilton  unsparingly  and  vehemently;  the  division  in 
the  Cabinet  became  public,  and  each  side  began  to  organize  as  a 
party.  The  Gazette  of  the  United  States  became  the  organ  of  the 
Federalists,  while  Jefferson  aided  in  the  maintenance  of  an  opposi- 
tion journal,  the  National  Gazette,  by  the  appointment  of  its  editor, 
Philip  Freneau,  to  a  clerkship  in  the  Department  of  State.  This 
newspaper  was  devoted  mainly  to  scurrilous  abuse  of  the  Federalist 
chiefs,  including  the  President,  who  once  spoke  of  its  editor  as  "  that 
rascal  Freneau,  who  sent  me  three  copies  of  his  paper  every  day.  as 
though  he  thought  I  would  become  a  distributor  of  them."  Be- 
tween the  two  hostile  secretaries  stood  the  calm  figure  of  Wash- 
ington, always  a  peacemaker,  striving  to  maintain  harmony  in  the 
Cabinet  and  to  keep  clown  party  spirit,  which  he  regarded  as  one 
of  the  chief  dangers  to  the  Republic.  But  his  efforts  were  fruitless, 
and  the  close  of  his  first  term  was  marked  by  so  much  bitterness  and 
rancor  that  he  desired  to  retire  to  private  life.  The  attacks  upon  his 
ministers  he  regarded  as  assaults  upon  himself,  and  once  in  the 
heat  of  passion  declared  that  he  would  rather  go  to  his  farm  and 
earn  his  bread  by  the  use  of  a  spade  than  remain  where  he  was. 

Ill 

REELECTION   OF   WASHINGTON  |   TROUBLES    WITH    FRANCE  AND   ENG- 
LAND ;    THE    WHISKY    REBELLION 

The  country,  however,  was  not  yet  ready  to  dispense  with  Wash- 
ington's services.  All  of  his  Cabinet  united  in  urging  him  to  serve 
a  second  term,  and  the  general  sentiment  of  the  people  was  probably 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  357 

1793 

correctly  expressed  by  Jefferson,  who  wrote  to  him,  saying-,  "  The 
confidence  of  the  whole  Union  is  centered  in  you ;  North  and  South 
will  hang  together  if  they  have  you  to  hang  on."  With  unfeigned 
reluctance,  he  consented  to  stand  for  reelection,  and  in  1792  was 
unanimously  chosen  to  succeed  himself,  being  supported  by  both 
Federalists  and  Republicans  with  equal  spontaneity  and  enthusiasm. 
He  received  132  electoral  votes,  the  number  having  been  increased 
by  the  admission  of  Vermont  to  the  Union  in  1791  and  Kentucky 
in  1792.  For  Vice  President  there  was  no  such  unanimity:  John 
Adams  (Federalist)  received  yy  electoral  votes;  George  Clinton 
(Republican),  50;  Thomas  Jefferson,  (Republican),  4;  Aaron 
Burr  (Republican),  1.  The  electors  were  chosen  by  the  State  legis- 
latures in  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia ;  elsewhere  they  were  elected  by  popular  vote. 
The  old  Cabinet  was  retained  without  change,  although  it  suffered 
a  break  the  following  year  by  the  retirement  of  Jefferson  and  a 
year  later  by  the  resignation  of  Hamilton.  Washington  then  aban- 
doned the  attempt  to  carry  on  the  government  with  the  leaders  of 
both  parties  as  his  ministers  and  made  up  his  Cabinet  wholly  of 
Federalists. 

Washington's  second  administration,  unnke  the  first,  was 
stormy  and  warlike,  with  party  dissensions  at  home  and  perils  and 
difficulties  brought  on  by  the  French  Revolution  abroad.  The  trou- 
bles abroad  grew  immediately  out  of  the  war  between  Great 
Britain  and  France  in  1793.  Ordinarily  this  would  have  been  a 
matter  of  little  or  no  concern  to  the  United  States,  but  the  sym- 
pathies of  the  American  people  were  naturally  with  the  French  Re- 
public, which  seemed  to  be  superficially  akin  to  our  own,  and  the 
result  of  American  example.  The  progress  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion was  watched,  therefore,  with  the  deepest  solicitude  by  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States.  There  were,  aside  from  considerations 
of  a  sentimental  character,  other  reasons  which  led  Americans  to 
sympathize  with  France.  During  the  dark  days  of  our  own  strug- 
gle for  independence  France  alone  among  European  nations  had 
made  a  treaty  of  alliance  and  commerce  with  us  and  had  contributed 
both  men  and  money  to  the  success  of  the  American  cause.  In 
return  for  this,  the  United  States  had  agreed  to  allow  her  certain 
privileges  in  our  ports,  such  as  shelter  to  French  privateers  and 
prizes,  which  were  not  allowed  to  other  nations,  and  to  guarantee 
the  integrity  of  her  colonial  possessions  in  the  West  Indies  in  case 


353  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1793 

of  defensive  war.  It  was  now  certain  that  an  attempt  would  be 
made  by  England  to  seize  the  possessions  of  France  in  the  West 
Indies,  and  consequently  the  fulfillment  of  the  American  promises 
was  certain  to  be  demanded  by  our  former  ally. 

We  were,  in  short,  bound  to  France  by  an  alliance,  by  grati- 
tude, and  by  the  sympathy  which  one  republic  must  needs  have  for 
another  in  an  age  when  republics  were  still  new  and  very  unpopular 
among  the  monarchies  of  the  Old  World.  American  sympathy 
with  France  was  still  further  elicited  by  the  treatment  which  we 
received  from  the  hands  of  her  old  enemy,  Great  Britain.  She  was 
still  our  enemy,  although  she  might  easily  have  made  us  her  friend. 
Ten  years  had  passed  since  the  formal  recognition  of  our  independ- 
ence had  been  extorted  from  her,  yet  she  had  refused  to  enter  into 
commercial  arrangements  with  us;  she  had  persisted  in  holding  the 
military  posts  in  the  Northwest  which  she  had  agreed  by  the  Treaty 
of  1783  to  surrender,  and  had  only  very  recently  condescended  to 
accredit  a  minister  to  our  government.  It  is  true  that  our  failure 
to  comply  with  our  treaty  obligations  as  to  debts  gave  England 
justification  of  her  attitude,  yet  that  did  not  alter  our  feelings. 

But  there  were,  nevertheless,  most  serious  objections  to  our 
joining  France  in  a  war  against  Great  Britain.  War  would  have 
meant  the  loss  of  a  large  and  rapidly  increasing  commerce,  besides 
entailing  other  sacrifices  which  the  new  Republic  could  ill  afford 
to  make  at  this  stage  of  its  career.  Certainly  it  would  seem  that 
nothing  could  have  been  more  unfortunate  for  our  growing  pros- 
perity than  a  second  war  so  soon  after  the  achievement  of  independ- 
ence. On  the  other  hand,  our  obligations  to  France  were  not  so 
certain  or  so  binding,  either  morally  or  legally,  as  they  seemed  at 
first  sight  to  enthusiastic  and  irresponsible  minds.  In  the  first  place, 
we  had  made  the  treaty  with  Louis  Capet,  the  head  of  the  French 
monarchy,  and  there  was  no  longer  a  French  monarchy,  the  French 
king  having  been  put  to  death  and  a  republic  established,  which 
was  struggling  for  existence  both  at  home  and  abroad.  In  the 
second  place,  France  had  aided  us  during  the  Revolution  not 
through  any  special  desire  to  see  American  independence  achieved, 
but  rather  to  injure  England.  Finally,  and  this  was  the  decisive 
legal  point,  it  can  be  said  very  justly  that  France  was  not  engaged 
in  a  war  of  defense,  but  had  undertaken  to  wage  war  against  all 
Europe  for  the  purpose  of  extending  the  ideas  engendered  by  the 
French  Revolution.     For  these  reasons  Hamilton  and  the  Federal- 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  359 

1793 

ists  generally  were  in  favor  of  strict  neutrality,  while  Jefferson  and 
his  followers  regarded  the  treaty  obligations  with  France  as  binding 
and  were  somewhat  inclined  to  favor  war  with  Great  Britain. 

In  April,  1793,  when  the  news  of  the  outbreak  of  war  between 
Great  Britain  and  France  reached  Philadelphia,  Washington  was  at 
Mount  Vernon,  whither  he  had  gone  shortly  after  the  inauguration 
to  enjoy  a  brief  and  well-earned  repose  from  his  public  duties. 
Hastening  at  once  to  the  capital,  he  summoned,  for  the  first  time, 
the  members  of  the  Cabinet  to  meet  him  in  council  for  the  pur- 
pose of  collective  consultation  with  regard  to  our  treaty  obligations 
with  France  and  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued  by  the  United 
States  in  the  approaching  struggle.  The  Cabinet  united  in  advis- 
ing a  policy  of  neutrality,  and  accordingly  on  April  22  the  President 
issued  a  proclamation  announcing  that  the  United  States  would  take 
no  part  in  the  war,  and  warning  all  citizens  from  giving  aid  to 
either  belligerent  upon  pain  of  prosecution  in  the  courts.  In  this 
famous  document  Washington  laid  down  the  principles  of  neutrality 
which  our  government  has  always  followed  with  regard  to  Euro- 
pean affairs  and  which  undoubtedly  was  the  only  wise  policy  at  the 
time.15  Shortly  before  the  issue  of  the  proclamation  the  French 
minister,  Genet,  an  over-zealous,  excitable  democrat,  arrived  at 
Charleston  well  supplied  with  blank  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
which  he  proceeded  to  issue  to  such  American  citizens  as  were  will- 
ing to  become  privateers  against  British  commerce.  A  number  of 
privateering  vessels  manned  by  American  seamen  were  actually 
fitted  out  in  American  ports  as  though  the  United  States  were  an 
ally  of  France,  and  several  British  vessels  were  captured  and 
brought  in  for  condemnation  as  good  prizes.  Proceeding  leisurely 
overland  to  Philadelphia,  Genet  was  the  recipient  throughout  his 
entire  journey  of  a  continual  ovation.  Democratic  associations, 
in  imitation  of  the  French  Jacobin  clubs,  were  organized  everywhere 
and  at  their  banquets  the  "  rights  of  man  "  were  enthusiastically  pro- 
claimed. Liberty-poles  were  erected,  Americans  dressed  like 
Frenchmen,  dropped  the  old  titles  of  "  Sir  "  and  "  Mr."  and  called 
each  other  "  Citizen."  16  French  revolutionary  songs  were  sung, 
the  tri-color  was  displayed  with  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  and  various 
other  manifestations  of  sympathy  with  France  were  to  be  seen  on 
every  hand.     Genet  was  feasted  at  Philadelphia  and  the  enthusiasm 

15  Lodge,  "Life  of  Washington,"  vol.  ii.  p.  115. 

16  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  93. 


360  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1793 

for  the  cause  he  represented  was  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the 
city.  Meantime,  Hammond,  the  newly  arrived  British  minister,  had 
filed  a  formal  complaint  against  the  fitting  out  of  French  privateers 
in  American  ports,  and  the  President  had  informed  Genet  that  no 
more  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  must  be  issued  and  that  the 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  must  be  respected.  But 
the  popular  manifestations  of  sympathy  for  this  fervent  champion 
of  the  "  rights  of  man  "  were  so  loud  that  Genet  allowed  himself 
to  believe  that  Washington  did  not  represent  the  feeling  of  the 
nation,  and  he  therefore  threatened  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  people 
to  override  the  President.  Thereupon  the  popular  enthusiasm  at 
once  subsided,  and  upon  the  demand  of  our  government  he  was  re- 
called in  disgrace.  The  French  Government  demanded  his  delivery 
up  for  punishment,  but  this  the  United  States  refused  to  do  "  for 
reasons  of  law  and  magnanimity  " ;  Genet,  therefore,  remained  in 
the  United  States  and  so  escaped  the  guillotine.  He  later  married 
the  daughter  of  Governor  Clinton  of  New  York  and  lived  to  a  ripe 
old  age.  It  is  but  just  to  say  that  he  has  been  the  subject  of  much 
unmerited  obloquy;  the  truth  is  he  did  not  violate  his  instructions, 
which  in  reality  contemplated  the  fitting  out  of  hostile  enterprises 
in  the  United  States.17  After  this  episode  sympathy  for  France 
declined  and  the  administration  regained  its  strength  with  all  the 
most  important  and  conservative  elements  among  the  people. 

But  the  effort  of  the  administration  to  pursue  a  policy  of 
neutrality  did  not  prevent  the  United  States  from  becoming  involved 
in  disputes  with  both  belligerents,  due  mainly  to  the  French  and 
English  interpretation  of  several  usages  of  international  law  regard- 
ing neutral  commerce.  One  of  the  effects  of  the  war  between 
England  and  France  had  been  to  drive  their  own  commerce  from 
the  seas.  Thereupon  the  American  neutral  carriers  acquired  almost 
a  monopoly  of  the  European  and  American  commerce,  and  it 
presently  came  about  that  nearly  three-fourths  of  the  world's  carry- 
ing trade  was  in  the  hands  of  Americans,  whereas  they  had  formerly 
carried  only  about  one-fourth.  When  French  merchantmen  were 
driven  from  the  seas  and  France  could  no  longer  get  the  sorely 
needed  products  of  her  colonial  possessions,  she  opened  her  colonial 
trade  to  neutrals,  and  soon  American  vessels  were  plying  between 
the  French  West  Indies  and  the  continent  of  Europe,  supplying 
France  witli  products  which  she  could  not  obtain  elsewhere.  Great 
17  See  John  Bassett   Moore,  "American  Diplomacy,"  p.  48. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  861 

1793-1794 

Britain  denied  the  right  of  France  to  throw  her  colonial  trade  open 
to  neutrals,  since  by  the  so-called  "  Rule  of  1756  "  a  nation  which 
forbade  neutral  trade  with  its  colonies  in  time  of  peace  could  not 
allow  it  in  time  of  war.  Great  Britain,  therefore,  claimed  and  exer- 
cised the  right  to  seize  American  merchant  vessels  trading  between 
France  and  her  West  India  colonies.  England  also  took  the  ex- 
traordinary ground  that  provisions  and  food  stuffs  were  contraband 
of  war,  and  accordingly  American  vessels  laden  with  such  cargoes 
bound  for  continental  ports  were  seized  and  paid  for  at  such  prices 
as  the  British  chose  to  give.  The  French  Government  followed  the 
same  course  with  regard  to  cargoes  destined  to  British  ports.  More- 
over, the  British  Government  insisted  that  after  notice  of  a  blockade 
had  been  given,  vessels  bound  to  blockaded  ports  might  be  seized 
anywhere  on  the  high  seas,  whether  a  blockading  squadron  was  sta- 
tioned at  the  entrance  to  the  interdicted  port  or  not.  Finally,  Great 
Britain  denied  the  American  doctrine  that  "  free  ships  make  free 
goods  " ;  that  is,  that  neutral  vessels  are  not  liable  to  capture  when 
carrying  enemy's  property  unless  such  property  is  contraband  of 
war.  In  disregard  of  this  view  American  vessels  carrying  French 
goods  were  stopped  on  the  high  seas  by  British  cruisers  and  their 
cargoes  confiscated  as  good  prize. 

As  a  result  of  these  several  interpretations  of  international  law, 
the  carrying  trade  of  the  United  States  was  seriously  crippled  by  the 
cruisers  of  both  England  and  France;  but  as  the  maritime  power 
of  the  former  was  much  greater  than  that  of  the  latter,  the  feeling 
in  the  United  States  was  proportionately  more  bitter  against  Eng- 
land. The  resentment  against  England  was  still  further  heightened 
by  her  practice  of  impressing  seamen  from  American  merchant 
vessels  on  the  ground  that  they  were  still  British  subjects,  notwith- 
standing naturalization  by  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  In 
many  instances  native-born  Americans  Avere  mistaken  intentionally 
or  unintentionally  for  British  seamen  and  were  seized  under  pecu- 
liarly irritating  circumstances. 

Spurred  on  by  the  popular  excitement  aroused  03^  these  aggres- 
sions, Congress  in  the  spring  of  1794  laid  an  embargo  for  sixty  days 
on  American  shipping,  prohibiting  all  vessels  from  departing  from 
American  ports.  A  measure  for  absolutely  interdicting  intercourse 
with  England  was  proposed,  and  was  defeated  only  by  the  casting 
vote  of  the  Vice  President  in  the  Senate.  For  a  time  war  with 
England  seemed  inevitable,  but  the   President,   knowing  well  the 


362  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1794-1795 

enormous  danger  of  war  to  our  new  government,  determined  to  make 
a  last  effort  to  come  to  a  friendly  understanding  with  England.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  April,  1794,  he  appointed  the  Chief  Justice,  John  Jay, 
as  special  envoy  to  England  to  act  in  conjunction  with  the  resident 
minister  at  London  in  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  for  the  settlement 
of  the  questions  at  issue.  Jay  reached  England  in  June,  was  re- 
ceived with  the  utmost  cordiality,  and  in  November  concluded  a 
treaty  with  the  British  Government,  but  it  was  not  received  by 
the  President  until  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in  March, 

1795- 

The  announcement  of  its  provisions,  which  were  given  out  by  a 
member  of  the  Senate  to  whom  it  had  been  communicated  in  con- 
fidence, caused  an  outburst  of  popular  wrath.  The  treaty  contained 
no  agreement  on  the  part  of  the  British  to  give  up  the  right  of 
search,  no  mention  was  made  of  impressment  nor  of  blockade,  nor 
of  recompense  for  the  actions  of  British  commanders  in  carrying 
away  negro  slaves  in  1783  in  violation  of  the  treaty;  in  fact,  there 
was  no  assurance  whatever  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  neutrals,  the 
violation  of  which  had  been  our  chief  grievance.18  The  treaty  pro- 
vided that  the  Western  posts  still  held  by  Great  Britain,  and  which 
included  Detroit,  Mackinaw,  Fort  Erie,  Niagara,  Oswego  and  sev- 
eral others,  should  be  evacuated  in  June,  1796;  that  mixed  commis- 
sions should  be  appointed  for  the  adjustment  of  the  northeast  boun- 
dary dispute  arising  from  the  difficulty  of  determining  what  was  the 
St.  Croix  River  mentioned  in  the  Treaty  of  1783,  and  for  the  set- 
tlement of  the  claims  arising  out  of  the  action  of  the  States  in  ob- 
structing the  payment  of  debts  due  British  creditors  in  violation 
of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  which  stipulated  that  creditors  on  either 
side  should  meet  with  no  lawful  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  the 
full  value  in  sterling  money  of  all  bond  fide  debts  contracted  before 
the  peace.  Finally,  a  mixed  commission  was  provided  for  adjust- 
ing all  claims  arising  from  the  action  of  British  cruisers  in  unlaw- 
fully capturing  American  vessels  in  1793.  The  most  objectionable 
provision  of  all  was  that  which  restricted  American  trade  with  the 
British  West  Indies  to  vessels  of  seventy  tons  burden,  but  which  al- 
lowed all  British  vessels  without  regard  to  tonnage  to  compete  in 
our  West  India  trade  unrestrained.  In  return  for  this  poor  con- 
cession for  twelve  years  the  United  States  was  not  to  export  mo- 
lasses, sugar,  coffee,  cocoa,  or  cotton  to  any  part  of  the  world,  and 

18  McMaster,   "History   of  the   United   States,"  vol.   ii.  pp.  246-247. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  363 

1795 

agreed  to  throw  open  all  her  ports  to  Great  Britain  and  permit 
reciprocal  trade  on  the  footing  of  the  most  friendly  nation.19  In 
June  the  Senate  was  called  together  in  extraordinary  session  to 
ratify  the  treaty,  and  it  was  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  the  nec- 
essary two-thirds  majority  was  obtained.  The  article  relating  to 
trade  with  the  West  Indies  and  the  prohibition  upon  exports  was 
promptl)'  rejected,  after  which  the  Senate  ratified  the  treaty  by  a 
narrow  majority.  The  House  of  Representatives,  being  called  upon 
at  the  ensuing  session  to  appropriate  the  necessary  funds  for  the 
payment  of  the  expenses  of  the  several  commissions  provided  for 
in  the  treaty,  indulged  in  a  fierce  debate,  in  which  the  treaty  was 
bitterly  attacked,  and  a  resolution  was  passed  calling  on  the  Presi- 
dent for  the  papers  relating  to  the  negotiations.  Washington  re- 
fused to  comply  with  the  request,  on  the  ground  that  the  House 
had  no  share  in  the  treaty-making  power,  and  that  the  executive 
must  be  the  sole  judge  as  to  the  publication  of  such  papers.  Finally 
the  House  gave  way,  and  by  a  vote  of  forty-eight  to  forty-one  passed 
the  necessary  appropriation  bills. 

The  treaty  was  now  a  part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  but 
the  popular  indignation  which  it  excited  throughout  the  country  was 
very  great.  Jay  was  hanged  and  burned  in  effigy  from  Maine  to 
Georgia.  Hamilton  was  stoned  while  defending  the  treaty  at  a 
public  meeting  in  New  York.20  State  legislatures,  conventions  and 
massmeetings  condemned  it  as  a  surrender  to  Great  Britain,  and 
an  offense  to  our  old  ally,  France.  Even  Washington  was  sav- 
agely reviled  in  language  which  he  said  "  could  scarcely  be  applied 
to  a  Nero,  to  a  notorious  defaulter,  or  even  to  a  common  pick- 
pocket." But  after  all  the  treaty  was  probably  the  best  that  could 
have  been  obtained  from  Great  Britain  at  the  time.  The  commis- 
sions settled  in  a  satisfactory  way  the  disputed  questions  of  boun- 
daries and  claims  referred  to  them,  and  altogether  over  $11,000,000 
were  awarded  to  the  United  States  in  the  form  of  indemnities  in 
consequence  of  this  much  abused  treaty,  as  against  $2,664,000 
awarded  Great  Britain  on  account  of  judicial  obstructions  to  the 
payment  of  British  debts.21  More  important  still,  the  treaty  post- 
poned for  a  term  of  years  the  war  with  Great  Britain  and  gave 
the  new  nation  time  to  grow  in  strength  and  to  prepare  for  the 

19  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  307. 

20  Lodge,   "  Life   of  Washington,"   vol.   ii.  p.    183. 

-1  See  John  Bassett  Moore,  "  International  Arbitrations,"  vol.  i.  pp.  298,  344. 


364  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1795 

struggle  which  came  seventeen  years  later,  besides  otherwise  proving 
of  immense  benefit  to  the  country.22 

While  the  excitement  over  the  Jay  treaty  was  at  its  height, 
another  agreement  of  special  importance  to  the  West  was  also  being 
negotiated.  This  was  the  treaty  with  Spain  concluded  by  Thomas 
Pinckney  in  October,  1795,  and  which  secured  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  the  valuable  privileges  of  freely  navigating  the  Mis- 
sissippi River  to  its  mouth  and  of  "  deposit "  at  New  Orleans  for  a 
period  of  three  years,  for  as  the  territory  at  the  mouth  of  the  river 
was  owned  by  Spain,  the  right  of  navigation  was  worthless  without 
a  "  place  of  deposit,"  where  goods  could  be  stored  for  trans-ship- 
ment. It  settled,  besides,  a  boundary  dispute  by  fixing  the  thirty- 
first  parallel  of  latitude  as  the  boundary  between  the  United  States 
and  Spanish  West  Florida.  The  principle  that  "  free  ships  make 
free  goods  "  was  also  recognized,  and  Spain  agreed  to  indemnify 
the  United  States  for  losses  sustained  on  account  of  unlawful  cap- 
tures of  American  merchant  vessels  in  the  late  war  between  France 
and  Spain.  The  treaty  was  very  popular  in  the  West,  since  it  se- 
cured an  outlet  for  the  trade  of  the  western  inhabitants  and  threw 
open  to  them  a  section  of  disputed  territory,  although  on  account  of 
the  tardiness  with  which  Spain  evacuated  the  posts  therein  it  was 
some  years  before  the  United  States  reaped  the  full  benefit.  In  the 
same  year  a  treaty  was  concluded  with  Algiers  by  which  the  crews 
of  various  American  vessels  that  had  been  captured  and  held  for 
ransom  by  Algerine  corsairs  were  released  in  consideration  of  the 
payment  by  the  United  States  of  a  large  sum  aggregating  not  less 
than  a  million  dollars,  and  the  promise  of  an  annuity  to  the  Dey  of 
sixty  thousand  dollars.23 

The  domestic  tranquillity  of  the  United  States  was  disturbed 
during  Washington's  administration  by  Indian  outbreaks  in  the 
West,  and  by  the  resistance  to  the  enforcement  of  the  excise  law  in 
Pennsylvania.  In  178(8  the  first  white  settlement  west  of  the  moun- 
tains was  made  at  Marietta  on  the  Ohio  River,  in  the  southeastern 
part  of  what  is  now  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  settlers  were  made 
up  chiefly  of  immigrants  from  New  England,  many  of  them  being 
veterans  of  the  Revolutionary  War.  During  the  years  immediately 
fallowing,  a  stream  of  pioneers  poured  over  the  mountains  to  the 
neighborhood  of  Pittsburg,  whence  they  embarked  on  flatboats  for 

"-  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  165. 
-3  Haswell,    "Treaties   and   Conventions,"   p.   776. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  365 

1795 

points  upon  the  Ohio,  where  settlements  were  quickly  made.  As 
has  already  been  said,  Congress  in  1787  provided  a  scheme  of  gov- 
ernment for  the  rapidly  growing  West,  and  this  was  shortly  after- 
wards put  into  operation  by  the  appointment  of  General  Arthur  St. 
Clair  as  governor.  At  these  encroachments  of  the  whites  the  In- 
dians looked  on  with  jealousy,  and  kept  the  frontier  in  constant 
dread  by  their  hostile  demonstrations.  The  faraway  posts  of  De- 
troit and  Mackinaw  were  still  occupied  by  the  British  forces,  in 
disregard  of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  and  it  was  popularly  believed  that 
the  English  incited  the  Indians  to  attack  the  white  settlers.  Be  this 
as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  the  presence  of  the  British,  old-time 
allies  of  the  Indians,  lent  courage,  if  nothing  more  material,  to  their 
unfriendly  attitude.  The  demonstrations  of  the  Indians  at  last 
became  so  hostile  that  in  1790  the  President  sent  General  Harmar 
with  a  force  of  1500  men  to  attack  them;  but  he  was  badly  defeated 
near  the  present  site  of  Fort  Wayne,  many  of  his  men  being  slaugh- 
tered and  their  bodies  thrown  into  the  river.  Harmar  was  court- 
martialed  and  acquitted,  but  the  verdict  did  not  change  the  popular 
opinion  that  he  was  incompetent,  if  not  guilty  of  cowardice,  and 
shortly  afterwards  he  resigned  his  commission.  In  the  following 
year  the  governor,  General  St.  Clair,  was  dispatched  against  them 
with  a  new  and  more  formidable  force  in  spite  of  Washington's 
caution  to  beware  of  an  ambuscade,  he  allowed  himself  to  be  sur- 
prised by  the  Indians,  and  his  little  army  was  cut  to  pieces,  Novem- 
ber 4,  1 79 1.  After  a  fight  of  several  hours  St.  Clair,  severely 
wounded  and  with  his  clothes  cut  to  shreds  by  eight  bullets,  gave  the 
order  for  retreat.  Many  of  his  men  were  left  behind  only  to  be 
scalped,  tortured  and  plundered  by  the  infuriated  savages.  Alto- 
gether about  six  hundred  men  were  killed  or  missing,  and  a  large 
quantity  of  arms,  ammunition  and  government  stores  was  lost. 
Terrible,  indeed,  was  Washington's  wrath  when  the  news  reached 
him  that  St.  Clair  had  been  defeated,  and  in  a  tempest  of  passion 
he  poured  out  awful  imprecations  upon  his  old  Revolutionary  com- 
rade, who  had  allowed  his  army  to  be  "  hacked,  butchered,  and  toma- 
hawked by  a  surprise."  24 

But  he  did  not  delay  to  indulge  his  feelings  of  grief  and  resent- 
ment.    In  order  to  retrieve  the  disaster,   he  appointed   Anthony 
Wayne,  one  of  the  bravest  and  most  daring  of  the  Revolutionary 
soldiers,  to  succeed  St.  Clair  as  major  general,  and  although  the 
24  Lodge,   "  Life   of   Washington,"  p.   96. 


866  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1795 

appointment  was  criticised,  events  soon  justified  Washington's  judg- 
ment. In  the  summer  of  1794  Wayne  completely  broke  the  power 
of  the  Indians  in  a  battle  on  the  Maumee,  not  far  from  the  present 
site  of  Toledo,  and  in  the  following  summer  (1795)  concluded  with 
their  chiefs  the  Treaty  of  Greenville,  by  which  the  pacification  of 
the  Northwestern  Indians  was  completed  and  the  greater  part  of 
northern  Ohio  was  ceded  to  the  United  States  and  thrown  open  to 
prosperous  settlement. 

While  Wayne's  campaign  against  the  Indians  was  in  progress, 
the  power  of  the  new  government  to  enforce  the  laws  and  main- 
tain domestic  tranquillity  was  for  the  first  time  being  put  to  the 
test  in  western  Pennsylvania.  In  this  remote  region,  far  from  the 
markets  of  the  East,  the  farmers,  finding  it  unprofitable  to  transport 
their  grain  across  the  mountains,  had  adopted  the  practice  of  turn- 
ing it  into  whisky,  and  in  this  more  portable  form  it  was  sent  over 
the  mountains  to  the  tide-water  region  and  there  sold  for  about  a 
shilling  a  gallon,  while  in  the  mountainous  country  it  served  the  pur- 
pose of  a  currency.  The  excise  tax  of  seven  to  eighteen  cents  a 
gallon,  according  to  proof,  bore  hard,  therefore,  on  these  trans- 
Alleghany  distillers,  who  were  not  accustomed  to  paying  high  taxes, 
and  accordingly  they  resisted  the  efforts  of  the  officers  to  collect 
the  revenue,  all  the  more  so  because  of  the  insistence  of  the  gov- 
ernment upon  specie. 

The  principal  seat  of  the  opposition  was  in  the  four  western 
counties.  The  collectors  in  several  instances  were  tarred  and  feath- 
ered, and  when  the  United  States  marshals  appeared  with  process 
for  service  on  the  delinquent  distillers,  the  officers  received  the  same 
treatment.  Public  meetings  were  held  at  which  the  iniquitous  excise 
was  denounced  and  resistance  to  its  enforcement  urged.  The  law 
was  amended  and  softened ;  a  commissioner  was  sent  to  the  scene 
of  the  disaffection  for  the  purpose  of  conciliating  the  malcontents, 
but  the  resistance  increased  rather  than  diminished,  and  Federal 
officers  were  fired  upon  by  armed  mobs,  driven  out  of  the  com- 
munity, and  their  houses  burned.25 

The  ordinary  machinery  of  courts  and  marshals  being  thus 
powerless  to  enforce  the  law.  Congress  passed  an  act.  which  is 
still  in  force,  empowering  the  President  to  call  out  the  militia  when, 
in  his  judgment,  combinations  too  powerful  to  be  dealt  with  by 
ordinary  methods  exist  against  the  enforcement  of  the  laws.  The 
25  McMaster.  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  189. 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  367 

1795-1733 

President  was  not  at  all  sure,  in  view  of  the  strong  States  rights 
feeling  then  prevailing,  and  the  opposition .  which  such  a  display 
of  Federal  authority  would  excite,  that  the  States  would  respond  to 
the  call  for  militia  to  execute  an  unpopular  Federal  law.  As  this 
was  the  first  test  of  the  new  government's  ability  to  maintain  the 
supremacy  of  its  laws,  it  was  necessary  that  no  risks  should  be 
taken,  for  if  it  proved  unable  to  collect  its  revenues  on  account  of 
the  opposition  of  a  community  of  backwoodsmen,  respect  for  its 
authority  would  be  gone.  Accordingly  Washington  called  upon  the 
governors  of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Maryland  and  Virginia  for 
fifteen  thousand  militia  to  put  down  the  rebellion.  Happily  the 
governors  responded  promptly,  and  leading  their  forces  in  person 
they  marched  toilsomely  over  the  mountains  to  the  scene  of  the 
disorder,  making  a  great  display  of  Federal  authority  as  they  pro- 
ceeded. Before  this  ample  and  well-timed  exhibition  of  power  the 
insurrection  speedily  collapsed,  the  ringleaders  fled,  the  authority  of 
the  United  States  was  vindicated  and  the  national  government  im- 
measurably strengthened  in  the  respect  of  the  people.  Some  of  the 
ringleaders  were  arrested  and  tried  for  treason,  but  none  were  con- 
victed. Several  were  tried  for  other  offenses  and  convicted,  but 
later  were  pardoned  by  the  President,  who  felt  that  being  frontiers- 
men, unaccustomed  to  that  respect  for  the  majesty  of  the  law  which 
usually  prevails  in  older  communities,  they  did  not  understand  the 
gravity  of  the  offense  of  rebellion.  The  affair,  which  is  usually 
dignified  by  the  name  of  the  Whisky  Rebellion,  cost  the  government 
over  a  million  dollars,  but  the  lesson  was  not  without  its  moral  value 
to  the  new  republic.26 

As  the  end  of  Washington's  second  term  approached  the  coun- 
try began  to  concern  itself  with  the  task  of  finding  a  successor  for 
the  great  office  which  many  had  felt  that  only  Washington  could 
fill.  His  last  term  had  been  stormy  and  full  of  dissensions,  but  at 
the  same  time  strong  and  victorious.  The  difficulties  with  England 
and  France,  the  unpopularity  of  the  Jay  Treaty,  the  Whisky  Insur- 
rection, the  bitter  party  rivalry,  the  discord  in  the  Cabinet,  and  its 
ultimate  disruption  as  well  as  the  scurrilous  abuse  heaped  upon  the 
President,  had  made  his  position  far  from  enviable,  although  he 
had  triumphed  over  every  obstacle.  It  was  well  known  that  he  had 
with  reluctance  consented  to  serve  a  second  term,  and  now  he  meant, 
with  a  determination  nothing  could  shake,  to  retire  to  his  long- 
26  Lodge,  "  Life  of  Washington,"  vol.   ii.  p.   126. 


368  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1796 

sought,  well-earned  repose  at  Mount  Vernon.  He  accordingly  is- 
sued a  farewell  address  announcing  his  determination  not  to  be  a 
candidate  for  a  third  term,  although  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
could  have  been  easily  elected  again  had  he  been  willing  to  stand. 
The  abuse  which  he  received  was  by  no  means  a  reflection  of  the 
popular  feeling,  but  we  have  abundant  evidence  that  it  greatly  an- 
noyed him  and  increased  his  distaste  for  public  life.  As  the  first 
President  of  the  new  republic  he  had  to  face  difficulties  such  as 
none  of  his  successors  ever  had  to  meet.  He  had  no  precedents  by 
which  to  be  guided  in  the  administration  of  an  office  which  at  the 
time  was  unlike  any  other  in  the  world.  It  therefore  devolved  upon 
him  to  set  an  example,  involving  a  greater  responsibility  in  that  he 
well  knew  it  would  probably  be  followed  in  all  essential  particulars 
by  his  successors.  Forunately  for  the  country  he  made  no  mistakes 
in  his  conduct  of  affairs,  or  in  the  usages  which  he  established.  As 
the  chief  civil  magistrate  of  the  country  he  displayed  the  same  wis- 
dom and  tact,  the  same  calm,  judicious  attitude  on  all  public  ques- 
tions, the  same  dignity  of  behavior  and  magnanimity  of  soul,  which 
he  had  shown  as  the  commander  of  the  armies  of  the  Revolution. 
It  is  impossible  to  estimate  the  effect  of  his  personal  character  upon 
the  office  which  the  Philadelphia  Convention  seemed  to  create  es- 
pecially for  him,  and  of  which  he  was  destined  to  be  the  first  and 
most  illustrious  incumbent.  The  petty  discords  and  troubles  of  his 
administration  are  forgotten  when  we  repeat  the  story  of  the  great 
constructive  work  which  marks  the  inauguration  and  the  first  years 
of  the  new  government.  Every  storm  and  difficulty  had  been 
weathered ;  the  wisdom  of  the  builders  of  the  nation  had  been 
abundantly  proved.  The  Constitution  was  no  longer  a  mere  experi- 
ment ;  its  permanence  was  assured,  so  far  as  eight  years  of  brilliantly 
successful  administration  could  assure  it.  Everywhere  was  evidence 
of  prosperity,  of  renewed  hope  and  of  love  of  country. 

In  taking  final  leave  of  public  office,  the  great  President  who 
had  served  the  public  for  forty-five  years,  took  occasion  to  give  his 
countrymen  a  few  words  of  advice,  and  to  warn  them  against  what 
he  considered  to  be  the  chief  dangers  to  the  country.  In  a  farewell 
address  which  he  put  forth  in  September,  1796,  and  which  he  had 
carefully  prepared  with  the  aid  of  others,  he  pleaded  earnestly  for 
a  full  appreciation  of  the  "  immense  value  of  union  and  unrestrained 
intercourse  between  all  parts  of  the  republic  ";  admonished  the  peo- 
ple to  beware  of  fc°  baneful  effects  of  party  spirit,  for  he  had  but 


FIRST     EIGHT     YEARS  369 

1796 

recently  felt  its  embittering  influences ;  urged  them  to  cherish  public 
credit  and  good  faith,  and  advised  them  to  deal  justly  with  all 
nations,  but  to  avoid  entangling  alliances  with  anyone.  His  words 
upon  this  subject  have  served  as  a  creed  for  all  parties,  and  have 
been  the  basis  of  our  foreign  policy  for  over  a  hundred  years. 
"  The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us,"  said  he,  "  in  regard  to  foreign 
nations  is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations,  to  have  with 
them  as  little  political  connection  as  possible;  if  we  remain  one 
people  under  an  efficient  government,  the  period  is  not  far  off 
when  we  may  defy  material  injury  from  external  annoyance,  when 
we  may  take  such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at 
any  time  resolve  upon  to  be  scrupulously  respected ;  it  is  our  true 
policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  portion  of  the 
foreign  world."  This  declaration  was  completed  by  the  next  gen- 
eration, when  Adams  and  Monroe  added  the  famous  doctrine  which 
was  the  corollary  of  that  announced  by  Washington.  The  Presi- 
dent's valedictory  was  cordially  approved  by  the  people  of  all  sec- 
tions of  the  Union,  and  many  public  and  private  bodies  testified 
through  formal  addresses  to  their  respect  and  affection  for  him,  who, 
by  the  common  consent  of  posterity,  has  earned  the  title,  "  Father 
of  his  Country."  "  The  well-chosen  words,"  says  Schouler,  "  in 
which  America's  venerated  captain  bade  farewell  to  public  station 
hushed  faction  into  silence;  and,  the  last  rapids  past,  his  bark  went 
fitly  down  to  a  rich  sunset  through  smooth  waters,  applauding  mul- 
titudes crowding  the  banks,  and  parties  emulating  in  respect  as 
though  to  borrow  glory  from  his  departing  radiance."  27 

27  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  346. 


Chapter  XVI 

THE    FEDERALIST   SUPREMACY.     1796-1801 

I 

JOHN   ADAMS   ELECTED    PRESIDENT 

THE  third  Presidential  election  was  the  first  to  be  character- 
ized by  anything  like  a  strict  party  contest.  Both  in  1789 
and  1792  Washington  had  been  the  unanimous  choice  of 
the  electors ;  but  the  development  of  political  parties  during  his  sec- 
ond term  made  inevitable  a  party  struggle  for  the  choice  of  his  suc- 
cessor. Jefferson,  who  had  retired  from  the  Department  of  State 
in  1793,  was  the  natural  leader  of  the  Republicans,  while  John 
Adams,  who  was  then  completing  his  second  term  as  Vice  Presi- 
dent, was  the  most  available  Federalist  candidate.  As  no  party 
machinery  for  nominating  Presidential  candidates  had  yet  been  de- 
vised, Jefferson  and  Adams  were  put  forward  by  the  general  consent 
of  their  respective  followers.  Aaron  Burr,  a  New  York  politician 
of  prominence  and  ability,  and  Thomas  Pinckney,  now  honored  as 
the  negotiator  of  the  Spanish  treaty,  were  the  Republican  and  Fed- 
eralist candidates  respectively  for  Vice  President. 

Adams  received  the  electoral  vote  of  all  the  Northern  States 
except  Pennsylvania,  and  also  those  of  Delaware  and  a  part  of 
Maryland,  making  a  total  of  seventy-one,  while  Jefferson  received 
nearly  all  the  Southern  votes,  and  also  the  vote  of  Pennsylvania, 
a  total  of  sixty-eight.1  The  Constitution  then  provided  that  each 
elector  should  vote  for  two  persons,  and  that  the  one  receiving  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  if  a  majority  of  the  whole  number,  should 
be  President,  and  that  the  person  receiving  the  next  highest  number 
should  be  Vice  President.  It  thus  happened  that  the  Republican 
candidate  for  President  was  elected  Vice  President,  and  the  country 
was  presented  with  the  anomalous  spectacle  of  an  administration 
with  a  Federalist  head  and  with  a  Republican  occupying  the  second 

1  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  307. 
370 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  371 

1796-1797 

place.  In  ten  States  the  electors  were  chosen  by  popular  vote,  in 
the  other  six  by  the  legislatures. 

On  March  4,  1797,  Adams  was  formally  inaugurated  in  the 
Hall  of  Representatives  at  Philadelphia,  in  the  presence  of  a  large 
concourse  of  spectators,  among  whom  was  Washington.  After 
delivering  a  brief  address  replete  with  common  sense  and  dignity 
of  expression,  he  took  the  oath  of  office,  which  was  administered 
by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Oliver  Ellsworth.  The 
first  and  only  President  elected  as  a  Federalist  was  a  graduate  of 
Harvard  College,  and  a  statesman  of  long  experience  and  training, 
being  then  in  his  sixty-second  year.  He  had  been  a  member  of 
the  Continental  Congress,  and  was  one  of  the  signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence ;  he  had  served  as  minister  to  England, 
and  with  Franklin  and  Jay  had  negotiated  the  Treaty  of  1783; 
while  as  Vice  President,  for  eight  years,  he  had  influenced  largely 
the  course  of  legislation  by  his  casting  vote  in  the  Senate.  Al- 
though an  able  and  distinguished  patriot,  with  only  the  highest 
interests  of  the  Republic  at  heart,  he  occasionally  showed  a  lack 
of  discretion  and  forbearance  as  President  which  involved  him  in 
difficulties.  He  was  somewhat  headstrong,  irritable  and  inclined 
to  vanity,  but  withal  a  most  conscientious  and  able  President. 

Although  it  is  customary  to  call  Adams  the  first  Federalist 
President,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  the  conduct  of  Washington's 
administration  was  entirely  in  keeping  with  the  Federalist  ways 
of  thinking,  and  the  policies  which  it  pursued  were  purely  Federalist 
and  not  at  all  Republican.  In  his  social  relations  President  Wash- 
ington conducted  himself  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  those 
whom  Jefferson  and  his  followers  were  wont  to  call  Federalist 
aristocrats  and  monarchists.  His  demeanor  was  anything  but 
democratic,  judged  by  the  standard  of  Paris,  which  then  set  the 
fashion  of  what  was  termed  democracy.  His  manner  was  reserved 
and  stately;  he  had  few  intimate  friends  and  no  familiars,  never 
forgetting  that  he  was  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Republic.  His 
receptions  were  exceedingly  formal,  and  were  thought  by  his 
political  opponents  to  be  characterized  by  a  certain  frigidity.  It 
was  reported  that  he  preferred  a  title  of  some  kind  in  keeping 
with  the  dignity  of  his  position,  and  we  know  that  he  did  not 
object  to  his  wife's  being  called  "  Lady  Washington."  Having  no 
precedents  to  guide  him  with  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
should  conduct  himself  while  in  office,  he  very  sensibly  addressed 


372  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1797-1801 

a  number  of  written  questions  to  his  Cabinet  asking  whether  he 
should  associate  with  all  or  see  none;  what  would  be  said  if  he 
were  sometimes  seen  at  quiet  tea  parties;  what  he  should  do  in 
the  way  of  receptions;  whether  he  should  make  tours  through  the 
country',  and  similar  questions.  The  rules  which  he  laid  down 
in  regard  to  all  these  matters  of  ceremony,  as  well  as  the  principles 
which  guided  him  in  the  determination  of  his  policies  of  state  were 
in  the  main  followed  by  Adams.  Even  Washington's  Cabinet  was 
retained  by  his  successor,  and  this  proved  to  be  one  of  the  first 
errors  of  the  new  administration,  for  several  of  these  gentlemen 
gave  their  first  allegiance  to  Hamilton,  who  was  the  real  leader 
of  the  Federalists,  rather  than  to  the  President,  who  was  their 
nominal  chief.2 

II 

THE   FRENCH    IMBROGLIO 

Thus  it  was  with  divided  counsels  that  the  new  administration 
entered  upon  its  career  confronted  by  a  grave  situation  in  regard 
to  the  foreign  relations  of  the  country.  France  had  felt  angered 
at  what  she  regarded  as  the  ingratitude  of  the  United  States  in 
refusing  to  join  her  in  the  war  against  England  in  1793,  and  this 
was  increased  to  rage  when  it  became  known  in  1795  that  the 
United  States  had  concluded  a  treaty  with  England,  instead  of 
declaring  war  against  her.  Up  to  that  time  France  had  confidently 
hoped  that  the  United  States  would  be  forced  by  the  increasing 
aggressions  of  the  British  to  make  common  cause  with  her.  Great 
was  the  surprise  and  indignation,  therefore,  of  the  French  Govern- 
ment when  news  of  the  Jay  Treaty  reached  Paris,  and  with  it  the 
destruction  of  this  last  hope.  This  treaty,  the  French  Government 
held,  virtually  made  the  Americans  the  allies  of  the  British  and 
released  France  from  the  obligations  of  1778. 

Soon  after  the  announcement  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Jay 
Treaty  the  French  Directory  issued  a  decree  announcing  that  the 
cruisers  of  France  would  in  the  future  treat  neutral  vessels  in  the 
same  manner  as  such  governments  suffered  England  to  treat  them. 
Thereupon,  French  cruisers  began  to  plunder  American  commerce 
more  ruthlessly  than  ever.     James  Monroe,  whom  Washington  had 

2  Morse,   "  Life   of   John   Adams,"   p.    275. 


fc   £   - 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  373 

1797- 1801 

sent  to  France  to  secure  redress  for  outrages  on  American  com- 
merce, was  recalled  in  1796  for  failure  to  press  the  American  claims, 
and  Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  an  elder  brother  of  the  late 
Federalist  candidate  for  Vice  President,  was  appointed  as  his  suc- 
cessor. Monroe  had  not  only  shown  indiscretion,  but  disobeyed 
his  instructions.  "  The  truth  is,"  said  President  Washington  in 
severely  criticising  him,  "  Mr.  Monroe  was  cajoled,  flattered  and 
made  to  believe  strange  things.  In  return  he  did,  or  was  disposed 
to  do,  whatever  was  pleasant  to  that  nation,  reluctantly  urging  the 
rights  of  his  own."  3  Upon  his  return  to  the  United  States  Monroe, 
contrary  to  all  displomatic  usage,  published  a  four  hundred  page 
vindication  of  his  conduct,  bitterly  attacking  the  administration, 
and  disclosing  diplomatic  information  of  a  confidential  nature. 

Shortly  after  Adams's  inauguration  news  came  that  the  Di- 
rectory had  refused  to  received  Pinckney  upon  his  arrival  at  Paris 
in  December,  1796;  that  he  had  been  treated  with  discourtesy,  by 
not  being  permitted  to  reside  in  France  even  as  a  private  alien, 
although  Monroe  by  reason  of  his  French  predilections  was  the 
object  of  constant  flattery;  and  that  the  Directory  had  declared 
that  no  minister  would  be  received  from  the  United  States  until 
the  French  grievances  had  been  redressed,  as  though  the  United 
States,  instead  of  France,  were  the  real  aggressor.  Burning  with 
indignation  the  President  called  Congress  together  in  special  session, 
advised  that  "  the  action  of  France  ought  to  be  repelled  with  a  de- 
cision which  shall  convince  her  and  the  world  that  we  are  not  a 
degraded  people,  humiliated  under  a  colonial  spirit  of  fear  and 
sense  of  inferiority,"  and  recommended  the  adoption  of  measures 
of  defense,  especially  the  augmentation  of  the  naval  force.  This 
language  highly  offended  the  French  Government,  and  served 
further  to  increase  the  tension  between  the  two  countries. 

The  President,  however,  was  extremely  desirous  of  reaching 
a  friendly  understanding  with  the  French  Government  in  spite  of 
his  dislike  for  French  manners  and  institutions,  and  he  determined 
to  send  a  special  commission  to  Paris  and  make  in  this  way  another 
effort  to  bring  about,  if  possible,  an  amicable  settlement  of  the 
dispute.  For  this  purpose  he  appointed  John  Marshall,  a  moderate 
Federalist,  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  a  Republican,  though  not  of  the 
radical  type,  to  join  Pinckney  at  Paris.  In  October,  1797,  they 
reached  Paris,  and  instead  of  being  allowed  an  official  interview  with 
3 "  Washington's    Writings,"    vol.    xiii.    p.    484. 


374  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1797-1801 

Talleyrand,  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  they  were  approached 
by  the  agents  of  the  Directory,  who  informed  them  in  a  vague 
and  roundabout  way  that  if  they  wished  to  conclude  a  treaty  with 
France,  the  United  States  must  make  a  loan  of  some  $6,000,000  to 
the  French  Government,  pay  each  of  the  five  directors  $50,000  as 
private  douceurs,  and  apologize  for  the  President's  language  at  the 
opening  of  Congress.  The  demands  for  douceurs  were  indignantly 
refused  by  the  astonished  envoys  with  the  reply,  "  No,  no,  not  a 
sixpence,"  although  they  offered  to  consult  their  government  with 
regard  to  the  loan,  provided  the  Directory  would  suspend  its  meas- 
ures against  American  commerce.  This  it  refused  to  do.4  There- 
upon the  negotiations  were  broken  off  and  Marshall  and  Pinckney 
returned  to  the  United  States,  leaving  behind  Gerry,  who,  by 
reason  of  his  Republican  sympathies,  was  better  liked  by  the  French 
diplomatists.  In  April,  1798,  the  President  laid  before  Congress 
their  dispatches,  the  name  of  Talleyrand's  go-betweens  being  desig- 
nated by  the  initials  X,  Y  and  Z.  As  soon  as  these  communications 
were  made  public  they  were  popularly  described  as  the  "  X,  Y,  Z 
Dispatches,"  and  the  popular  indignation  was  summed  up  in  the 
universal  cry,  "  Millions  for  defense,  but  not  one  cent  for  tribute," 
a  famous  phrase  erroneously  attributed  to  Pinckney.  The  Presi- 
dent recommended  the  adoption  of  vigorous  measures  of  defense, 
and  announced  that  he  would  "  never  send  another  minister  to 
France  without  assurances  that  he  would  be  received,  respected  and 
honored  as  the  representative  of  a  great,  free,  powerful  and 
independent  nation.5  The  war  fever  swept  over  the  country  from 
Maine  to  Georgia,  the  Federalists  and  Republicans  now  standing 
on  common  ground  as  regarded  their  attitude  toward  France.  The 
Republicans  donned  the  cockade,  the  Federalist  emblem,  while  tri- 
colors and  liberty  poles  which  had  been  fervently  displayed  by  the 
Republicans  at  the  time  of  the  outbursts  of  enthusiasm  for  France 
in  1793  were  thrown  aside  with  contempt.  Hopkinson's  popular 
song  "  Hail,  Columbia,"  was  composed  at  this  time  and  set  to  the 
"  President's  March."  6 

There  was  no  longer  any  external  difference  between  Fed- 
eralists and  Republicans  concerning  the  attitude  toward  France, 
and  the  treaties  with  France  were  deliberately  suspended  by  act 

*  J.  B.  Moore.  "  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  59. 

r>  Morse,  "  Life  of  John  Adams."  p.  287. 

6  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  380. 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  375 

1797-1801 

of  Congress.  Preparations  for  war  were  actively  begun ;  volunteer 
companies  were  formed  in  the  towns,  and  popular  subscriptions  for 
building  and  fitting  out  ships  were  taken,  $125,000  being  raised 
in  Boston  alone.  In  the  seacoast  towns  forts  were  built  and 
earthworks  erected.  No  formal  declaration  of  war  was  ever  made, 
but  Congress  authorized  the  issue  of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
and  soon  the  ocean  was  swarming  with  privateers  seeking  French 
merchant  vessels.  A  Navy  Department  was  created,  with  George 
Cabot,  a  rich  Boston  merchant,  as  the  first  secretary,  and  a  num- 
ber of  naval  vessels  were  authorized  to  be  built. 

As  early  as  1794  Congress  had  authorized  the  construction 
of  six  frigates,  and  of  these  the  Constitution,  the  Constellation,  and 
the  United  States,  famous  names  in  our  naval  annals,  were  now 
ready  for  use,  and  with  lesser  vessels  made  a  navy  of  some  three 
dozen  sail.  The  little  squadron,  commanded  by  such  men  as  De- 
catur, Bainbridge,  Hull  and  Rodgers,  was  then  sent  to  the  West 
Indies  to  search  for  French  ships  and  protect  American  commerce. 
In  February,  1799,  the  Constellation,  carrying  thirty-eight  guns,  in 
command  of  Captain  Truxton,  captured  the  French  frigate  L'ln- 
surgente,  carrying  forty  guns,  in  the  Caribbean  Sea,  and  a  little 
later  the  Vengeance,  carrying  fifty-four  guns.  A  number  of  cap- 
tures were  likewise  made  by  the  privateers.  Steps  were  also  taken 
to  reorganize  and  increase  the  strength  of  the  army,  and  Wash- 
ington was  appointed  commander-in-chief  with  the  rank  of  lieu- 
tenant general  with  the  understanding  that  the  chief  command, 
except  in  case  of  actual  war,  should  be  exercised  by  Hamilton,  who 
was  made  second  in  rank.  Knox  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney  were 
also  appointed  major  generals,  and  a  number  of  brigadiers  were 
authorized. 

In  the  meantime,  Talleyrand  having  become  convinced  that  the 
United  States  would  resist  to  the  last  the  aggressions  of  France, 
and  that  nothing  but  an  honorable  treaty  would  be  acceptable  to  the 
Americans,  notified  the  American  minister  at  the  Hague  in  a 
round-about  way,  that  "if  a  minister  from  the  United  States  were 
sent  he  should  be  received  with  the  respect  due  to  the  represen- 
tative of  a  free  and  independent  nation."  The  grace  with  which 
he  did  it  was  not  the  finest,  and  would  be  resented  today;  but  then 
the  Republic  was  in  its  swaddling  clothes,  and  it  was  thought 
best  to  avoid  war,  if  possible,  even  if  it  involved  the  sacrifice  of 
a  little  dignity.     Accordingly,  the  President  appointed  the  Chief 


376  THE     UNITED     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1797-1801 

Justice,  Oliver  Ellsworth,  Governor  Davie  of  North  Carolina,  and 
William  Vans  Murray,  then  minister  to  Holland,  and  an  able  mem- 
ber of  the  bar,  as  special  envoys  to  negotiate  a  treaty.  When 
they  reached  Paris  they  found  that  the  Directory  had  been  over- 
thrown by  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  who  as  First  Consul  was  at  the 
head  of  the  government.  Bonaparte  was  disposed  to  be  friendly 
with  the  United  States,  and  in  September  concluded  with  the  en- 
voys a  treaty  of  peace,  commerce,  navigation  and  fisheries,  which 
released  the  United  States  from  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  of 
1778,  and  exempted  France  from  all  responsibility  for  damages 
inflicted  upon  American  commerce  by  French  cruisers.7  This 
ended  the  so-called  quasi  war  between  the  two  nations,  and  rees- 
tablished friendly  relations. 


Ill 

FEDERALIST  MEASURES 

The  French  hostilities  made  Adams  popular,  discredited  the 
Republicans,  who  cherished  a  traditional  sympathy  for  the  French, 
and  brought  the  Federalists  to  the  front  with  a  majority  in  both 
houses  of  Congress.  In  this  situation  the  party  proceeded  to  enact 
four  laws  which  destroyed  its  popularity  and  led  to  its  ultimate 
downfall  as  a  political  organization.  These  were  a  naturalization 
act,  two  alien  acts,  and  the  sedition  act.  The  general  purpose  of 
all  these  measures  was  ta  crush  out  foreign  influence  and  repress 
domestic  opposition,  but  the  attempt  proved  ruinous  to  the  Fed- 
eralists. It  was  believed  that  the  chief  strength  of  Republican 
opposition  was  the  foreign  element.  Many  Republican  newspapers 
were  edited  by  foreigners,  chiefly  Frenchmen  and  Irishmen,  who 
indulged  in  scurrilous  abuse  of  Federalist  leaders  and  Federalist 
measures.  Adams's  administration  was  reviled  in  a  manner  which 
greatly  annoyed  him,  and  he  felt  that  a  limit  ought  to  be  set  to  the 
right  of  editors  and  pamphleteers  to  criticise  the  government,  and 
inasmuch  as  many  of  these  were  naturalized  citizens  it  might  be 
well  to  place  greater  restrictions  upon  the  right  of  aliens  to  ac- 
quire American  citizenship.  Accordingly  a  new  Naturalization 
Act  was  passed,  which  increased  the  term  of  residence  required 

7  Foster,  "  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  179. 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  377 

1797-1801 

for  citizenship  from  five  to  fourteen  years;  established  a  more 
stringent  procedure,  and  required  a  registration  for  purposes  of 
surveillance  of  all  white  aliens  thereafter  arriving  in  the  United 
States.  An  Alien  Act  was  then  passed  authorizing  the  President, 
for  a  period  of  two  years,  to  expel  from  the  country  any  alien 
whom  he  might  deem  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the 
United  States,  or  who  was  suspected  of  being  concerned  in  any 
treasonable  or  secret  machinations  against  the  government,  and 
another  empowering  him  in  time  of  war  to  order  the  removal  of 
all  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  hostile  government.  In  case  an  alien 
warned  to  depart  was  afterwards  found  in  the  United  States,  he 
could  be  fined  and  imprisoned  for  three  years,  at  the  President's 
discretion;  and  if  any  alien  having  been  banished  should  return  to 
the  United  States  without  permission,  he  might  be  imprisoned 
at  the  discretion  of  the  President  for  an  indefinite  term. 

The  Sedition  Act,  to  prevent  and  restrain  "  seditious  prac- 
tices," was  a  measure  of  greater  severity,  and  excited  more  oppo- 
sition. It  ordered  the  punishment  of  any  person  who  should  con- 
spire to  oppose  the  execution  of  any  act  of  Congress,  or  who 
should  write  or  publish  any  false,  scandalous  or  malicious  matter 
against  the  government,  either  house  of  Congress,  or  the  Presi- 
dent, or  seek  to  bring  them  into  contempt  or  disrepute.  Any 
person  convicted  of  an  offense  against  the  first  mentioned  provision 
was  to  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  $5,000  and  five  years'  imprison- 
ment; while  the  punishment  for  the  second  was  a  fine  not  ex- 
ceeding two  thousand  dollars  and  imprisonment  for  two  years.8 
The  Alien  Acts  were  criticised  as  depriving  accused  persons  of  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  as  vesting  the  President  with  arbitrary 
powers,  since  any  suspected  alien  was  liable  to  summary  banish- 
ment at  the  pleasure  of  the  President  without  the  slightest  regard 
for  due  process  of  law.  No  occasion,  however,  seems  to  have 
arisen  for  the  employment  of  the  powers  thus  conferred  upon 
the  President,  and  the  act  expired  without  ever  having  been  en- 
forced. But  not  so  with  the  Sedition  Act.  It  was  immediately 
taken  advantage  of  by  the  Federalists,  and  a  number  of  Republican 
editors  were  prosecuted  for  libeling  the  government,  one  of  whom 
was  Callender,  a  Scotch  pamphleteer  and  friend  of  Jefferson.  He 
was  convicted  of  saying,  among  other  things,  that  Adams  had 
completed  a  scene  of  ignominy  which  Washington  had  begun. 
8  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  432. 


878  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1797-1801 

Mathew  Lyon,  of  Irish  birth,  a  member  of  Congress  from  Ver- 
mont, was  fined  $1,000  and  sentenced  to  prison  for  a  term  of  four 
months  for  criticising  in  the  course  of  a  political  canvass  the  gov- 
ernment for  its  "  ridiculous  pomp,  foolish  adulation,  and  selfish 
avarice,"  and  being  virtually  offered  a  pardon  by  the  President, 
he  refused  to  accept  it,  and  was  reelected  to  Congress  while  in 
prison. !)  Other  convictions  for  similar  utterances  followed.  The 
trials  under  this  act  aroused  intense  indignation  among  the  Re- 
publicans, who  affirmed,  and  not  without  some  truth,  that  the 
Federalist  journals  were  allowed  to  publish  what  they  pleased 
without  molestation.  The  least  that  can  be  said  of  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  is  that  they  were  short-sighted  party  measures,  in- 
tended to  crush  out  political  opponents  rather  than  win  them, 
wholly  repugnant  to  the  spirit  and  genius  of  American  institutions, 
and  instead  of  accomplishing  the  purpose  for  which  they  were 
passed  did  the  Federalist  party  irreparable  injury.  This  was  the 
first  and  only  attempt  by  the  national  government  to  suppress  free 
speech,  shackle  the  press  and  outlaw  those  who  had  sought  our 
shores  as  an  asylum  from  oppression. 

Among  those  who  opposed  these  measures  as  destructive  of 
the  liberties  of  the  people,  no  one  was  more  active  than  the  Vice 
President,  Thomas  Jefferson,  who  proposed  to  organize  public 
opinion  against  them  by  an  appeal  through  the  legislatures.  In 
pursuance  of  this  plan  he  wrote  a  series  of  resolutions,  which  the 
legislature  of  Kentucky  adopted  in  1798,  with  certain  modifica- 
tions, while  another  set,  prepared  at  his  suggestion  by  Madison, 
was  adopted  by  the  legislature  of  Virginia  in  the  same  year.  The 
"  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions,"  as  they  have  come  to  be 
known,  contain  the  first  clear  enunciation  of  the  compact  theory  of 
the  Union  —  a  theory  which  was  destined  to  have  an  immense  in- 
fluence on  the  constitutional  development  of  the  country.  The 
Kentucky  resolutions,  which  were  the  first  to  be  adopted,  declared 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact  under  which  are  united  equal 
sovereign  States,  that  the  general  government  is  one  of  delegated 
powers,  and  when  it  assumes  undelegated  powers  its  acts  are  un- 
authoritative, void  and  of  no  force,  and  in  such  case  the  States 
(which  are  the  parties  to  the  compact)  have  the  right  to  judge 
for  themselves  of  the  infractions  and  of  the  mode  of  redress.10 

9  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  399. 
10  See  Warfield,  "The  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798." 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  370 

1797-1801 

Incidentally,  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  were  declared  to  be  null 
and  void,  on  account  of  their  repugnance  to  the  Constitution.  In, 
the  following  year  the  Kentucky  legislature  passed  another  set  of 
resolutions  in  which  the  right  of  the  States  to  judge  of  infractions 
of  the  Constitution  was  reasserted,  and  the  additional  view  ad- 
vanced that  nullification  by  the  States  of  unauthorized  Federal 
acts  was  the  rightful  remedy.  The  Virginia  resolutions,  written 
by  Madison,  were  milder  in  tone,  although  they  presented  the 
"  compact  "  theory  of  the  Union,  and  called  upon  the  other  States 
to  join  Virginia  in  declaring  the  obnoxious  Alien  and  Sedition 
Acts  unconstitutional.  The  resolutions  were  sent  to  all  the  State 
legislatures  for  an  expression  of  opinion,  but  the  nullificationists 
received  little  encouragement  or  sympathy.  All  the  Northern 
State  legislatures  formally  condemned  as  pernicious  the  doctrine 
that  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  might  at  the  discretion  of  a  single 
State  legislature  be  set  aside,  while  the  action  of  the  Southern  leg- 
islatures did  not  indicate  any  very  great  sympathy  with  the  doc- 
trines thus  set  forth. 

The  most  important  effect  of  the  Kentucky  and  Virginia  Reso- 
lutions was  to  arouse  public  opinion  against  the  recent  acts  of  Con- 
gress, and  to  create  a  reaction  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  States. 
Some  have  fixed  the  stigma  of  responsibility  for  the  theory  of 
nullification,  which  was  to  play  such  an  important  part  in  our 
history,  upon  Jefferson  and  Madison.11  Years  afterwards,  when 
the  country  was  greatly  aroused  over  the  attempt  of  South  Carolina 
to  nullify  the  tariff  act,  the  venerable  Madison  indignantly  repelled 
the  imputation  that  either  he  or  Jefferson  ever  contemplated  the 
nullification  of  an  act  of  Congress  by  a  single  State.12  The  proba- 
bility is  that  all  that  was  intended  was  to  arouse  public  opinion  by 
a  formal  denunciation  of  the  recent  arbitrary  measures  of  the 
government,  and  thereby  prevent  similar  legislation  in  the  future.13 

While  the  excitement  over  the  trouble  with  France  was  at  its 
height,  and  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts  were  under  discussion,  the 
President  announced  the  ratification  of  the  eleventh  amendment  to 
the  Constitution.  This  amendment  grew  out  of  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  1794  (Chisholm  v.  Georgia),  which  held  that 

11  Morse,  "Life  of  Jefferson,"  p.  194;  also  Von  Hoist,  "Constitutional  His- 
tory of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  149. 

12  Houston,  "  A  Study  of  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,"  p.  24. 

13  See  Schonler,  "  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson,"  p.  193. 


380  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1797-1801 

the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Courts  extended  to  suits  brought 
by  private  citizens  against  a  State,  provided  the  plaintiff  were 
a  resident  of  another  State. 

At  that  time,  when  the  idea  of  State  sovereignty  was  strong, 
it  was  regarded  as  little  less  than  an  outrage  upon  the  dignity  of  a 
State  to  make  it  the  defendant  in  a  suit  at  the  instance  of  a  private 
individual,  and  the  decision  in  question  came  near  provoking  the 
State  of  Georgia,  against  which  it  was  directed,  to  resistance.  To 
prevent  the  State  from  carrying  out  its  threats,  and  to  avoid  similar 
difficulties  in  the  future,  Congress  proposed,  and  the  States  ratified, 
an  amendment  providing  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United 
States  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend  to  any  suit  commenced  or 
prosecuted  against  one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens  of  another 
State  or  of  a  foreign  state.  The  amendment  accomplished  its  pur- 
pose, but  it  has  proved  to  be  an  evil,  in  that  it  has  enabled  States 
to  repudiate  their  debts,  leaving  their  non-resident  creditors  with- 
out judicial  remedy  except  in  the  State  courts. 

As  the  eighteenth  century  drew  to  a  close  the  country  was 
thrown  into  mourning  by  the  death  of  its  most  illustrious  citizen, 
George  Washington,  who  since  the  expiration  of  his  presidential 
term  had  been  living  in  retirement  at  Mount  Vernon.  Born  in 
1732,  he  had  been  a  witness  of  and  a  participant  in  the  chief  events 
of  the  century.  His  death  was  announced  in  Congress  by  John 
Marshall,  his  young  friend  and  neighbor.  By  Richard  Henry  Lee 
he  was  pronounced  to  have  been  "  First  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and 
first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen."  To  no  other  man  was  the 
Republic  so  indebted.  He  had  been  the  leader  in  the  war  for  in- 
dependence; he  had  helped  to  make  the  Constitution,  and  as  the 
first  chief  magistrate  he  had  started  the  nation  upon  its  great 
career,  and  had  successfully  guided  it  clear  of  the  early  perils. 

At  the  close  of  Adams's  administration  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment was  removed  from  the  gay  city  of  Philadelphia  to  Washing- 
ton, then  a  dreary  village  of  two  or  three  hundred  inhabitants.  It 
had  been  laid  out  in  the  woods  a  few  years  previous,  its  houses 
were  mostly  huts  of  the  rudest  sort,  while  its  streets  were  deep, 
muddy  roads  flanked  by  rows  of  scrub  oaks  and  pines.  There 
was  no  business,  no  industry,  no  society.  For  those  who  wished  to 
live  comfortably,  says  McMaster,  "  the  only  resource  was  to  go  to 
Georgetown,  three  miles  away."  14  Most  of  the  government  build- 
14  McMaster.  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  489. 


FEDERALIST     SUPREMACY  381 

1797-1801 

ings  were  but  half  finished,  the  Capitol  was  hardly  ready  for  the 
meeting  of  Congress,  and  the  noise  of  hammer  and  saw  in  the 
partly  finished  Presidential  mansion  disturbed  the  quiet  of  the 
village.  Such  was  the  rude  beginning  of  one  of  the  finest  capitals 
of  the  world. 

Meantime  the  Presidential  election  was  claiming  the  attention 
of  the  country.  The  Federalist  members  of  Congress  had  met  in 
caucus  and  renominated  Adams  and  Pinckney;  the  Republican 
members  had  in  the  same  way  nominated  Jefferson  for  President 
and  Aaron  Burr  for  Vice  President.  The  Alien  and  Sedition  Acts, 
and  the  bitter  quarrel  which  had  broken  out  between  Hamilton 
and  Adams,  had  destroyed  the  chances  of  the  Federalists,  so  that 
when  the  electoral  votes  were  counted  it  was  found  that  Jefferson 
and  Burr  had  each  received  seventy-three,  Adams  sixty-five,  and 
Pinckney  sixty-four  votes.  According  to  the  Constitution  the 
election  now  devolved  upon  the  House  of  Representatives,  voting 
by  States,  there  being  a  tie  between  the  two  leading  candidates. 
Under  the  system  by  which  each  elector  voted  for  two  persons,  it 
was  natural  that  as  soon  as  strict  party  organization  was  intro- 
duced the  two  candidates  of  each  party  would  tie,  since  every 
elector  who  voted  for  one  would  probably  vote  for  the  other.  This 
happened  at  the  first  election  after  the  rise  of  political  parties,  and 
it  doubtless  would  have  continued  to  happen  had  not  the  Constitu- 
tion been  amended.  The  framers  had  evidently  not  foreseen  the 
time  when  the  President  and  Vice-President  would  be  chosen  by  a 
strict  party  vote.  Another  difficulty  was  that  in  voting  the  electors 
did  not  indicate  which  of  the  two  candidates  was  being  voted  for 
as  President  and  which  for  Vice  President.  In  the  present  case 
there  was  nothing  on  the  face  of  the  returns  to  show  whether  the 
electors  wished  Jefferson  for  President,  or  Burr,  although,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  was  well  known  to  be  Jefferson.  If  the  House 
had  been  Republican,  Jefferson  would  have  been  promptly  chosen, 
in  obedience  to  the  well-known  wishes  of  the  party.  But  the  situa- 
tion was  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  Federalists  were  in  a 
majority  in  the  House,  and  as  the  Constitution  provided  that  in 
such  cases  the  choice  should  be  made  from  the  two  highest  candi- 
dates, they  were  forced  to  choose  between  two  evils,  as  they  re- 
garded it.  Therefore  they  were  inclined  to  choose  that  one  of  the 
candidates  who  would  most  likely  do  them  the  least  harm  as  Presi- 
dent, and  that  one  in  their  opinion  was  Burr. 


382  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1797-1801 

They  also  discussed  the  plan  of  balloting  fruitlessly  for  a 
President  until  the  expiration  of  Adams's  term,  March  4,  when 
both  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice  President  would  become 
vacant,  and  a  new  election  could  be  held.  Intrigues  were  then 
entered  into  with  a  view  to  securing  terms  with  the  candidates. 
Jefferson  declared  unequivocally  that  he  would  not  "  receive  the 
government  on  capitulation,"  that  he  would  not  "  go  into  it  with 
hands  tied."  Hamilton,  Jefferson's  most  bitter  enemy,  now  came 
forward  with  true  high  mindedness  and  political  sagacity,  and  ad- 
vised the  Federalists  to  choose  Jefferson  as  a  less  dangerous  man 
than  Burr,  whom  he  pronounced  as  "  true  a  Cataline  as  ever  met  in 
midnight  conclave."  "  If  there  be  a  man  in  the  world  I  ought  to 
hate,"  said  Hamilton,  "  it  is  Jefferson ;  but  the  public  good  must 
be  paramount  to  every  private  consideration.15  After  a  long  strug- 
gle, lasting  through  more  than  a  week,  during  which  threats  and 
ugly  rumors  of  various  kinds  were  afloat,  Jefferson  was  chosen 
on  the  thirty-sixth  ballot,  receiving  the  vote  of  ten  States,  as 
against  four  for  Burr,  two  States  casting  blank  votes.16  In  a  letter 
to  Governor  McKean  Jefferson  declared  that  if  the  election  had 
resulted  in  the  choice  of  Burr  no  one  would  have  submitted  more 
cheerfully  than  himself;  but  in  the  event  of  a  usurpation  he  was 
decidedly  with  those  who  were  determined  not  to  permit  it.  Burr 
is  said  to  have  secretly  schemed  for  the  office  and  held  out  prom- 
ises to  the  Federalists,  although  he  well  knew  that  the  electors  never 
intended  to  choose  him  for  the  Presidency.  Threats  of  war  had 
been  made  by  the  Republicans  in  case  the  Federalists  should  choose 
Burr,  and  in  order  to  avoid  similar  dangers  in  the  future  a  move- 
ment was  at  once  set  on  foot  for  the  amendment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion with  regard  to  the  manner  of  electing  the  President,  and  before 
another  Presidential  election  occurred  the  amendment  had  become 
a  part  of  the  Constitution. 

15  Stanwood,   "  History  of   the    Presidency,"   p.    70. 

16  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  524- 


Chapter  XVII 

JEFFERSONIAN    REPUBLICANISM.     1801-1809 

I 

CHARACTER   OF   JEFFERSON 

WITH  the  accession  of  Jefferson  to  the  Presidency  on 
March  4,  1801,  a  new  political  party  came  into  power, 
holding  principles  widely  different  from  those  upon  which 
the  government  had  been  administered  during  the  preceding  twelve 
years.  He  was  the  first  President  to  be  inaugurated  at  the  new 
capital  city  of  Washington,  and  the  first  Chief  Magistrate  whose 
political  tastes  were  ostensibly  democratic.  Although  democratic 
in  politics,  he  belonged  to  the  Virginia  aristocracy,  from  whose 
ranks  so  many  of  our  early  Presidents  were  destined  to  be  drawn. 
After  graduating  from  William  and  Mary  College  he  studied  law 
under  Chancellor  Wythe,  a  distinguished  Virginia  barrister,  and 
was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1767.  As  a  member  of  the  Continental 
Congress  he  wrote  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  while  still  in 
his  thirty-third  year.  As  a  member  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
he  was  the  author  of  notable  legal  reforms,  particularly  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  law  of  primogeniture  and  entail  as  regards  land  in- 
heritance, and  the  establishment  of  religious  freedom.  He  was 
also  the  author  of  a  general  system  of  education,  and  was  the 
founder  of  the  University  of  Virginia.1  As  a  member  of  the 
State  legislature,  governor  of  Virginia,  minister  to  France,  Secre- 
tary of  State,  and  Vice  President,  he  had  acquired  large  experience 
as  a  statesman,  and  had  shown  himself  to  be  a  most  successful 
politician. 

In  person  he  was  tall,  loosely  built,  freckled  faced,  somewhat 
awkward  in  movement,  inclined  to  carelessness  of  dress,  retiring  in 
disposition,  extremely  democratic  in  his  habits,  and  hostile  to  cere- 
mony and  parade.     Senator  Maclay  of  Pennsylvania  described  him 

1  Schouler,    "  Life    of    Thomas    Jefferson,"    ch.    vi. 
383 


384  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801 

in  1790  as  a  man  whose  figure  had  a  "  loose,  shackling  air,"  his 
countenance  a  "  rambling  vacant  look,"  and  as  one  who  talked 
brilliantly  almost  without  ceasing.  To  the  British  Secretary  of 
Legation  at  Washington  in  1804  he  appeared  "  very  much  like  a 
tall,  large-boned  farmer,"  dressed  in  a  blue  coat,  thick  gray-colored 
hairy  waistcoat,  with  a  red  underwaist  lapped  over  it,  green  velvet 
breeches  with  pearl  buttons,  yarn  stockings  and  slippers  down  at 
the  heels.2  He  was  benevolent  of  disposition,  hospitable  almost  to 
self-impoverishment,  and  the  most  indulgent  of  slavemasters.  He 
had  a  quick  and  inquiring  mind,  and  touched  on  many  subjects; 
but  his  acquirements  were,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  various  and 
superficial  rather  than  solid  or  profound.  He  read  easily  several 
languages,  studied  with  enthusiasm  botany,  music,  mathematics, 
architecture  and  other  sciences;  kept  a  record  of  meteorological 
phenomena,  made  experiments  in  astronomy,  practiced  scientific 
agriculture,  took  great  interest  in  the  proposed  application  of  steam 
to  machinery,  discussed  with  familiarity  zoology  and  archaeology, 
and  is  said  to  have  invented  an  improved  plow.  He  kept  up  with 
the  literature  of  the  day,  and  maintained  a  constant  correspondence 
with  leading  men,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  as  his  twenty  thousand 
letters  show.3  As  an  architect  he  drew  the  plan  for  his  home  at 
Monticello.  He  was  an  expert  violinist  and  a  bold  horseman.  But 
the  one  subject  he  thoroughly  understood  was  politics,  and  it  was 
as  a  manager  of  men  that  he  stands  unrivaled. 

Although  Jefferson  charmed  his  friends  by  his  delightful  cor- 
respondence, and  excited  their  admiration  by  his  versatility  as  a 
thinker,  yet  as  an  orator  he  was  ineffective  and  consequently  rarely 
resorted  to  speech-making  on  public  occasions.  His  religious  views 
were  those  of  a  free  thinker  and  materialist,  with  preferences  for 
Unitarianism.  But  he  was  no  scoffer  at  divine  truths,  no  enemy  of 
the  moralities  and  decencies  of  life,  but  one  whose  private  life  was 
singularly  pure.4  The  Xew  England  Federalists,  especially  the 
clergy,  charged  him  with  being  an  atheist;  but  we  have  his  tes- 
timony that  he  believed  in  God,  although,  like  Benjamin  Frank- 

2  See  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  186. 

3  Concerning  Jefferson's  many-sidedness  someone  said :  "  He  could  calculate 
an  eclipse,  survey  an  estate,  tie  an  artery,  plan  an  edifice,  try  a  cause,  break  a 
horse,  dance  a  minuet,  and  play  the  violin."  Buffon,  the  naturalist,  in  a  letter  to 
him,  expressed  regret  at  not  having  consulted  him  before  publishing  his  natural 
history. 

4  Schoulcr,   "  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson,"   p.   229. 


JEFFEUSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       385 

1801 

lin,  he  did  not  accept  the  teachings  of  orthodox  Christianity,  so  far 
as  they  related  to  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  Scriptural  interpreta- 
tions. His  social  peculiarities  were  quite  as  striking  as  his  mental 
characteristics.  His  theory  was  that  all  were  equal,  and  titles  and 
distinctions  were  exceedingly  distasteful  to  him.  Aristocracies 
founded  on  birth  were  to  him  worthless  shams;  no  race  of  kings, 
he  said,  ever  presented  above  one  man  of  common  sense  in  twenty 
generations,  and  as  for  existing  sovereigns,  he  did  not  believe  there 
was  one  in  Europe  whose  talents  or  merits  would  entitle  him  to 
be  elected  a  vestryman  by  the  people  of  any  parish  in  America.5 
He  objected  to  the  stamping  of  his  likeness  on  the  coinage,  and 
to  the  celebration  of  his  birthday  by  his  friends;  he  did  not  scrup- 
ulously observe  the  customary  ceremonial  in  the  reception  of  for- 
eign ambassadors,  ignored  the  formal  system  of  precedence  at  social 
functions,  and  established  the  "  rule  of  pelc-mcle,"  by  which  each 
guest  selected  his  own  seat  at  the  dinner-table,  the  ladies  being  es- 
corted by  those  nearest  them  when  dinner  was  announced.6 

The  first  Republican  President  was  duly  inaugurated  at  the 
new  Capitol  March  4,  1801,  the  oath  being  administered  by  the  new 
Chief  Justice,  John  Marshall.  He  did  not,  as  an  English  traveler 
wrote  two  years  later,  ride  horseback  to  the  Capital  unattended, 
and  after  hitching  his  horse  to  the  palings,  go  in  to  take  the  oath; 
but  he  walked  from  his  lodgings  escorted  by  a  body  of  troops  and  a 
number  of  political  friends,  including  several  members  of  the 
Cabinet.  In  a  somewhat  inaudible  voice  he  delivered  an  inaugural 
address,  which  for  a  long  time,  says  Henry  Adams,  was  almost 
as  well  known  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Besides  a  cer- 
tain charm  of  style,  it  was  in  a  way  the  first  platform  of  a  new 
political  party,  and  it  has  continued  until  this  day  to  embody  the 
political  philosophy  of  one  of  the  two  great  parties  into  which  the 
people  of  the  United  States  are  divided.  After  a  few  remarks, 
intended  to  soothe  his  political  opponents,  such  as  "  We  are  all  Re- 
publicans, we  are  all  Federalists,"  "  brethren  of  the  same  principle 
called  by  different  names,"  and  a  few  others  in  praise  of  the  Amer- 
ican system  of  government,  which  he  pronounced  "  the  strongest 
on  earth  —  the  only  one  where  every  man,  at  the  call  of  the  laws, 
would  fly  to  the  standard  of  the  law,"  he  proceeded  with  an 
epitome  of  his  political  principles,  those  which  were  to  guide  him 

5  "  Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  426 ;  also  vol.  v.  p.  8. 
G "  Jefferson's    Works."   vol.    viii.   p.    277. 


386  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801 

in  the  conduct  of  his  administration.     Compressed  in  the  narrow- 
est compass,  they  included,  he  said: 

"Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  men,  of  whatever  state  or  persuasion, 
religious  or  political ;  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship,  with  all  nations 
— entangling  alliances  with  none;  the  support  of  the  State  governments  in  all 
their  rights,  as  the  most  competent  administrations  for  our  domestic  concerns 
and  the  surest  bulwarks  against  anti-republican  tendencies ;  the  preservation 
of  the  general  government  in  its  whole  constitutional  vigor,  as  the  sheet  anchor 
of  our  peace  at  home  and  safety  abroad;  a  jealous  care  of  the  right  of  election 
by  the  people — a  mild  and  safe  corrective  of  abuses  which  are  lopped  by  the 
sword  of  revolution  where  peaceable  remedies  are  unprovided ;  absolute  ac- 
quiescence in  the  decisions  of  the  majority — the  vital  principle  of  republics,  from 
which  there  is  no  appeal  but  to  force,  the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent 
of  despotism;  a  well-disciplined  militia — our  best  reliance  in  peace  and  for  the 
first  moments  of  war,  till  regulars  may  relieve  them ;  the  supremacy  of  the  civil 
over  the  military  authority ;  economy  in  the  public  expense,  that  labor  may  be 
lightly  burdened ;  the  honest  payment  of  our  debts  and  sacred  preservation  of 
the  public  faith ;  encouragement  of  agriculture,  and  of  commerce  as  its  hand- 
maid; the  diffusion  of  information  and  the  arraignment  of  all  abuses  at  the 
bar  of  public  reason ;  freedom  of  religion ;  freedom  of  the  press ;  freedom 
of  person  under  the  protection  of  the  habeas  corpus;  and  trial  by  juries  impar- 
tially selected — these  principles  form  the  bright  constellation  which  has  gone 
before  us,  and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revolution  and  reformation. 
The  wisdom  of  our  sages  and  the  blood  of  our  heroes  have  been  devoted  to 
their  attainment.  They  should  be  the  creed  of  our  political  faith — the  text  of 
civil  instruction — the  touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services  of  those  we  trust; 
and  should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error  or  alarm,  let  us  hasten 
to  retrace  our  steps  and  to  regain  the  road  which  alone  leads  to  peace,  liberty, 
and  safety."  7 

The  rather  aristocratic  but  certainly  dignified  manner  in  which 
the  Federalists  had  conducted  the  government  was  especially  dis- 
tasteful to  him,  and  he  accordingly  abandoned  several  of  their 
practices  and  established  others,  which  have  since  been  followed 
without  deviation.  One  of  the  Federalist  customs  was  to  have 
the  President  meet  Congress  at  the  opening  of  each  session,  and 
read  to  it  a  formal  address,  after  which  the  two  houses  separated, 
prepared  appropriate  replies,  and  then  marched  to  the  Executive 
Mansion  and  presented  their  reply  to  the  executive.  This  was  the 
British  practice,  and  if  for  no  other  reason  was  obnoxious  to  Jef- 
ferson. He  accordingly  communicated  with  Congress  by  written 
message,   and   dispensed  altogether   with   the   reply  of   Congress. 

7  Richardson,  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the   Presidents,"  vol.  i.  p.  323. 


THOMAS   JEFFERSON 

(Born,    1743.     Died,    182C) 

After   an   engraving    by    Baron   Desnoycrs,    Paris 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM      387 

1801 

The  Federalists  asserted,  probably  with  some  truth,  that  the  inno- 
vation was  due  to  Jefferson's  incapacity  as  a  speaker  quite  as  much 
as  to  his  fidelity  to  democracy.  However  this  may  be,  the  prac- 
tice has  been  followed  by  all  his  successors,  and  levees,  as  they 
had  been  maintained  by  Washington  and  Adams,  were  also  done 
away  with. 

Jefferson  was  inclined  to  interpret  the  election  of  1800  as  a 
revolution  against  what  he  called  the  monarchial  tendencies  and 
usurpations  of  the  Federalists  —  a  revolution  as  real  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  government  as  that  of  1776  was  in  its  form,  he  main- 
tained; and  he  therefore  determined  to  put  the  ship  of  state  on  the 
Republican  tack,  as  he  expressed  it,  in  order  that  she  might  show 
the  beauty  of  her  motion  and  the  skill  of  her  builders.8  His  po- 
litical philosophy  was  summed  up  in  the  ideas  that  government  rests 
on  the  consent  of  the  governed,  and  that  the  government  which 
governs  least  is  the  best,  and  is  more  in  harmony  with  the  true 
theory  of  individual  liberty.  So  far  as  the  general  government 
was  concerned,  this  course  was  not  only  wise,  but  obligatory  under 
the  Constitution.  For,  according  to  his  interpretation  of  that  in- 
strument, the  function  of  the  general  government  was  limited 
chiefly  to  foreign  concerns,  the  great  sphere  of  internal  government 
being  left  chiefly  to  the  States.  The  general  government,  he  con- 
tended, should  be  a  "  very  simple  organization  and  a  very  inex- 
pensive one;  a  few  plain  duties  to  be  performed  by  a  few  servants." 
He  thought  the  country,  under  the  Federalist  rule,  had  been  too 
much  governed,  that  unnecessary  legislation  had  been  enacted,  that 
the  number  of  officers  had  been  needlessly  multiplied,  that  the  tax- 
ing power  had  been  unnecessarily  employed,  and  that  the  public 
expenditures,  notably  for  the  maintenance  of  the  army,  the  navy, 
and  the  diplomatic  establishment,  were  greater  than  the  public 
welfare  demanded.9  This  general  line  of  policy  Jefferson  believed 
to  be  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of  strict  construction  of  which 
he  was  the  most  distinguished  advocate,  and  which  had  been 
wholly  disregarded  by  the  Federalists  during  their  supremacy. 
Thus  he  came  into  power  on  a  platform  of  principles  wholly  at 
variance  with  those  which  had  been  in  force,  and  fully  persuaded 


8  "Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  365;  vol.  vii.  p.   133. 

9  "Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  330.    For  a  discussion  of  Jefferson's  politi- 
cal philosophy  see  Merriam,  "  American  Political  Theories,"  ch.  iv. 


388  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1801 

that  the  Federalists  had  abused  their  powers  he  was  resolved  to 
bring  about  reform. 

II 

REPUBLICAN    "  REFORMS  " 

Among  his  constitutional  advisers,  Jefferson  selected  Madison 
to  be  Secretary  of  State,  and  Gallatifi  to  be  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury. The  other  members  were  men  whose  names  were  hardly 
known  beyond  their  States.  In  both  houses  of  Congress  the  Repub- 
licans had  a  majority,  completely  under  Jefferson's  influence,  but 
the  Supreme  Court,  the  authority  charged  with  interpreting  the 
Constitution,  was  still  composed  of  Federalist  judges,  while  the 
great  majority  of  the  administrative  offices  of  the  government  were 
likewise  held  by  Federalist  incumbents,  for  while  Washington  and 
Adams  had  never  failed  to  appoint  men  of  high  character,  they 
uniformly  gave  the  preference  to  those  of  their  political  faith. 
This  was  a  source  of  anxiety  to  the  new  President,  who  thought 
that  there  ought  to  be  a  more  equitable  division  of  the  offices  among 
both  parties.  He  lamented  that  "  nearly  the  whole  of  the  offices  of 
the  United  States  were  monopolized  by  a  particular  sect,"  and  de- 
clared that  it  would  have  been  a  circumstance  of  great  relief  had 
he  found  a  "  moderate  participation  of  office  in  the  hands  of  the 
majority."  It  was  intolerable,  he  said,  that  this  monopoly  should 
continue  after  the  recent  verdict  of  the  people,  and  as  few  incum- 
bents died  and  none  resigned,  the  only  means  of  making  places 
for  Republicans  was  by  removal.  It  was  a  painful  duty,  he  pro- 
fessed, but  he  was  ready  to  meet  it  as  such.10 

The  Federalists,  foreseeing  their  early  downfall,  had  during 
the  last  months  of  Adams's  administration  created  a  number  of 
new  offices,  which  had  been  promptly  filled  by  the  appointment  of 
men  of  their  own  party.  Among  the  offices  thus  created  were  six- 
teen Federal  circuit  judgeships  and  twenty-four  minor  judicial 
positions  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  which  were  filled  during  the 
last  hours  of  Adams's  term  by  the  appointment  of  staunch  Fed- 
eralists. "  Thus,"  said  Jefferson,  "  they  have  retired  into  the  ju- 
diciary as  a  stronghold ;  there  the  remains  of  Federalism  are  to  be 

10 "  Jefferson's    Works."    vol.    iv.    p.    402. 


JEFFERSON  IAN     REPUBLICANISM       389 

1801 

preserved  and  fed  from  the  treasury;  and  from  that  battery  all  the 
work  of  Republicanism  are  to  be  beaten  down  and  destroyed."  n 
The  story  is,  that  as  midnight  of  the  last  day  of  Adams's 
term  approached,  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  John  Mar- 
shall, was  all  astir  with  the  work  of  preparing  commissions  for  the 
recent  appointees,  when  General  Dearborn,  representing  Jefferson, 
walked  in  to  take  charge.  Such  commissions  as  had  not  been  de- 
livered were  withheld  by  Madison,  the  new  Secretary  of  State,  on 
the  ground  that  Adams  had  no  authority  to  make  appointments 
during  the  last  hours  of  his  term,  when  a  new  administration  was 
coming  into  power.  One  of  these  "  midnight "  appointees,  Mr. 
Marbury,  whom  the  President  had  appointed  justice  of  the  peace 
for  the  District  of  Columbia,  brought  suit  in  the  Supreme  Court 
for  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  Secretary  of  State  to  deliver 
his  commission.  The  court  refused  to  issue  the  writ,  on  the 
ground  that  it  had  no  authority  under  the  Constitution  to  do  so, 
and  that  the  provision  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  which  under- 
took to  give  the  court  that  power,  was  not  warranted  by  the  Consti- 
tution. The  court,  therefore,  laid  down  the  new  and  far-reaching 
doctrine  that  an  act  of  Congress,  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  judi- 
ciary is  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  is  null  and  void,  and  every- 
one is  thus  relieved  from  all  obligation  to  be  bound  thereby.  Al- 
though there  were  some  loud  protests  among  the  Republicans 
against  the  assumption  of  such  authority  upon  the  part  of  the  court, 
the  decision  was  acquiesced  in,  and  thus  was  established  the  peculiar 
American  doctrine  of  the  right  of  the  courts  to  override  the  statutes 
of  the  legislature.  The  author  of  this  great  opinion  of  the  court  in 
the  case  of  Marbury  vs.  Madison  was  John  Marshall,  recently  Secre- 
tary of  State,  who  had  been  appointed  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  to  succeed  Oliver  Ellsworth,  about  a  month  before  the  expira- 
tion of  Adams's  term.  Marshall  was  destined  to  become  the  fore- 
most American  jurist,  and  one  of  the  greatest  judges  of  modern 
times.  For  thirty-four  years  as  Chief  Justice  he  dominated  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  during  all  this  period,  while  the  other  two 
departments  of  the  government  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Repub- 
licans, the  Federalists  continued  to  possess  this  "  stronghold  "  and 
to  interpret  and  apply  the  Constitution  and  laws  according  to  Fed- 
eralist theories  of  constitutional  law.     The  appointment  of  Mar- 

11  "  Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  424. 


390  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801 

shall  was  the  most  far-reaching  act  in  its  effect  of  President 
Adams's  administration.  Marshall  not  only  elevated  the  Supreme 
Court  to  a  place  of  great  dignity  and  respect,  but  his  decisions  on 
the  many  difficult  questions  of  constitutional  law  arising  during  the 
early  years  of  the  government  built  up  the  national  sentiment  and 
increased  the  strength  of  the  central  government.  He  was,  with 
Hamilton  and  Washington,  one  of  the  three  great  founders  of 
the  Republic. 

The  effort  of  the  Federalists,  already  condemned  by  the  popu- 
lar verdict,  to  intrench  themselves  in  the  government  by  methods 
which,  to  the  Republicans,  seemed  disreputable,  Jefferson  was  deter- 
mined to  defeat.  Shortly  after  his  inauguration  he  wrote  to  Dr. 
Benjamin  Rush  of  Philadelphia :  "  I  will  expunge  the  effects  of 
Mr.  A.'s  indecent  conduct  in  crowding  nominations  after  he  knew 
they  were  not  for  himself.  Some  removals  must  be  made  for  mis- 
conduct —  of  the  thousands  of  officers  in  the  United  States  a  very 
few  individuals  only,  probably  not  twenty,  will  be  removed ;  and 
these  only  for  doing  what  they  ought  not  to  have  done."  12  "  That 
done,"  he  again  wrote,  "  I  shall  return  with  joy  to  that  state  of 
things  when  the  only  questions  concerning  a  candidate  shall  be, 
is  he  capable,  is  he  honest,  is  he  faithful  to  the  Constitution?  "  13 
Jefferson  accordingly  removed  a  number  of  Adams's  so-called  mid- 
night appointees;  then  followed  a  few  who  had  made  themselves 
offensive  as  partisans,  or  were  guilty  of  official  misconduct;  and 
finally  a  group  consisting  mainly  of  attorneys  and  marshals,  against 
whom  no  charge  was  made,  but  who  were  removed,  as  Jefferson 
said,  "  to  make  room  for  some  participation  for  the  Republicans." 
The  courts  were  so  "  decidedly  Federal,"  he  said,  that  the  removal 
of  attorneys  and  marshals,  "  they  being  the  doors  of  entry  into  the 
courts,"  was  indispensably  necessary  as  a  "  shield  to  the  Republican 
part  of  our  fellow  citizens."  14  In  order  to  retain  their  places  un- 
disturbed many  of  the  Federalist  incumbents  joined  the  Republican 
party  and  became  outspoken  maligners  of  those  with  whom  they 
had  formerly  affiliated.  Few  removals  had  been  made  by  Jeffer- 
son's predecessors.  Washington,  during  his  two  terms,  had  re- 
moved but  9,  and  Adams  had  displaced  but  19,  most  of  them  in  the 

12  "Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  382. 

13  Letter  in  reply  to  the  "Remonstrance  of  New  Haven  Citizens,"  July  12, 
1801 ;  "  Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  402. 

14  Letter  to  Giles,  March  23,  1801 ;  "Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  iv.  p.  381. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM      391 

1801-1805 

interest  of  the  public  service,  a  few  for  political  reasons.15  During 
the  eight  years  of  Jefferson's  administration  he  removed  109  offi- 
cials out  of  a  total  of  433  belonging  to  the  Presidential  class.  This, 
however,  does  not  include  the  number  of  subordinates  who  lost 
their  positions  as  a  consequence  of  the  displacement  of  their  su- 
periors.16 Technically,  perhaps,  Jefferson  must  bear  the  odium 
of  introducing  the  spoils  system  into  the  national  service,  for  with 
him  party  allegiance  was  made  the  basis  of  appointment,  and  party 
dissent  a  cause  for  removal.  But  it  was  not  the  sole  cause,  and 
certainly  the  civil  service  was  not  corrupted  and  enfeebled  by  the 
adoption  of  a  policy  of  wholesale  proscription.  The  adoption  of 
this  innovation  belongs  to  one  of  his  successors.17 

There  was  one  class  of  officers,  however,  which  was  believed 
to  be  beyond  Jefferson's  reach,  namely,  the  Federal  judges,  whose 
tenure  is  fixed  by  the  Constitution  at  good  behavior.  In  spite 
of  this  provision,  Congress,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  President,  re- 
pealed the  law  passed  during  Adams's  administration  for  the 
creation  of  the  sixteen  circuit  judgeships,  and  thus  the  incumbents 
were  legislated  out  of  office,  much  to  the  chagrin  of  the  Federalists. 
A  clause  of  the  repealing  act  provided  for  a  suspension  of  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  period  of  fourteen  months,  for 
the  purpose,  says  Henry  Adams,  of  preventing  Marshall  from 
declaring  the  judiciary  act  unconstitutional.18 

To  reach  the  other  judges  nothing  remained  but  to  try  im- 
peachment. Some  of  them  had  gone  out  of  the  way  to  express 
from  the  bench  their  opinions  of  Jeffersonian  democracy.  In  Feb- 
ruary, 1803,  John  Pickering,  district  judge  in  New  Hampshire, 
was  impeached  for  drunkenness  and  violence,  and  was  removed 
from  office.  The  weapon  of  impeachment  was  then  turned  against 
one  of  the  Supreme  Justices,  Samuel  Chase,  who  had  on  several 
occasions  shown  strong  political  bias  on  the  bench,  and  who,  in 
the  course  of  a  charge  to  a  grand  jury,  had  taken  occasion  to  ex- 
press his  condemnation  of  Jefferson's  election,  and  his  belief  that 
the  government  under  Republican  rule  would  soon  sink  into 
"  monocracy."     Although  Chase's  display  of  partisanshio  on  the 

15  Fish,  "  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patronage,"  p.  21. 
18  Ibid.,  p.  42 

1T  For  the  character  of  his  appointments  see  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the 
United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  227  et  seq. 

18 Henry  Adams,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  208. 


892  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801-1805 

bench  was  fully  established,  the  requisite  two-thirds  of  the  senators 
could  not  be  secured  for  conviction,  and  he  was  accordingly  ac- 
quitted, greatly  to  the  chagrin  of  Jefferson.  Articles  of  impeach- 
ment were  also  prepared  against  Peters,  one  of  the  district  judges, 
for  arbitrary  conduct,  but  no  action  was  taken  by  the  House. 
Thus  this  desperate  effort  to  seize  the  courts  and  make  them  the 
creature  of  the  administration,  for  the  time  being,  failed;  hence- 
forth the  judiciary  was  unmolested  by  the  Republicans,  and  Jef- 
ferson was  compelled  to  accept  its  inexorable  decrees,  although  he 
believed  it  to  be  dangerous  to  the  rights  of  the  people,  saying,  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  that  it  "  was  a  body  like  gravity,  ever  acting 
with  noiseless  feet,  gaining  ground  step  by  step,  and  engulfing 
insidiously  the  State  governments."  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
his  hostility  to  the  Supreme  Court  was  partly  the  result  of  per- 
sonal dislike  for  Marshall,  whom  he  wished  to  have  impeached. 

After  repealing  the  Judiciary  Act,  the  Naturalization  Act  and 
other  obnoxious  Federalist  measures,  Congress  took  up  Jefferson's 
recommendations  with  regard  to  retrenchment,  reorganization  of 
the  finances  and  the  reduction  of  the  civil,  military  and  naval  estab- 
lishments. The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Albert  Gallatin,  was  an 
able  financier,  second  only  to  Hamilton,  and,  like  Hamilton,  a 
citizen  of  foreign  birth.  Gallatin,  upon  request  of  the  President, 
drew  up,  after  long  and  laborious  study,  an  elaborate  scheme  of 
finance  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  and  the  reduction  of  the 
government  expenditures.  Under  the  Federalists,  so  the  Repub- 
licans complained,  the  taxes  had  increased  threefold,  while  the  ex- 
penditures had  increased  in  even  greater  proportion;  yet  the  high- 
est point  which  the  expenditures  had  ever  reached  was  only 
$11,500,000,  attained  in  the  year  1800,  when  increased  expenses 
were  made  necessary  on  account  of  the  quasi  war  with  France.  Of 
this  amount  more  than  one-third  was  on  account  of  the  national 
debt.  The  average  annual  expenditures  had  been  about  $9,000,000, 
a  smaller  sum  than  was  expended  in  any  one  year  of  Jefferson's 
administration.19  One  of  the  sources  of  revenue,  namely,  the  in- 
ternal tax  on  whisky,  refined  sugar,  stamped  paper,  etc.,  amounting 
all  told  to  about  $650,000  annually,  was  especially  obnoxious  to  the 
Republicans,  and  was  accordingly  abolished,  and  at  the  same  time 
provision  was  made  for  setting  aside  $7,300,000  annually  for  the 

19  Henry  Adam?,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  253. 


JEFFEKSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM      393 

1801-1805 

payment  of  the  public  debt,  which  nominally  amounted  to  about 
$80,000,000.  Then,  upon  Jefferson's  recommendation,  the  army 
was  given  a  "  chaste  reformation."  Its  strength  was  reduced 
from  4,000  to  2,500  men,  the  peace  establishment  of  1795  leaving 
only  one  regiment  of  artillery,  two  of  infantry,  and  a  corps  of  en- 
gineers. Likewise,  the  new  President  favored  a  large  reduction  of 
the  navy,  and  suggested  that  the  remaining  vessels  might  be  hauled 
up  into  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Potomac,  where  they  would  be 
under  the  immediate  eye  of  the  department,  and  where  "  it  would 
require  but  one  set  of  plunderers  to  look  after  them."  20  The  num- 
bers of  vessels  in  commission  was  therefore  reduced  from  about 
twenty-five  to  seven,  work  on  fortifications  was  stopped,  and  the 
construction  of  ships  on  the  stocks  was  abandoned.  The  number 
of  naval  officers  was  reduced  about  three-fifths,  and  the  President 
was  authorized  to  sell  the  gallant  little  squadron  which  the  Federal- 
ists had  constructed,  excepting  thirteen  frigates,  of  which  only  seven 
were  to  be  retained  in  commission.21  An  effort  was  also  made  to 
abolish  the  navy  department  and  place  the  management  of  naval 
affairs  under  control  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  as  had  been  the  case 
before  the  advent  of  the  Federalists  to  power,  but  the  bill  failed. 
Jefferson  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  fruition  of  his  policy  of 
economy,  and  before  he  retired  from  the  Presidency  the  public 
debt,  under  the  wise  management  of  Gallatin,  was  reduced  over 
forty  millions,  or  about  one-half,  the  taxes  had  been  reduced  by  a 
million  and  a  half,  while  there  had  been  a  large  increase  of  the 
revenues  from  customs  duties. 


Ill 

FOREIGN  RELATIONS;  WAR  WITH  TRIPOLI;  PURCHASE  OF  LOUISIANA 

At  the  very  time  when  the  reduction  of  the  army  and  the  dis- 
mantling of  the  navy  were  going  on,  the  country  was  called  upon 
to  prepare  for  war  with  Tripoli,  one  of  the  Barbary  States  in 
North  Africa.  Ever  since  the  middle  ages  these  countries  had  fol- 
lowed piracy  as  one  of  their  chief  pursuits,  and  the  European 
nations  apparently  without  any  sense  of  common  interest  had  sub- 


20  Letter  to  S.  Smith,  April  17,  1801. 

21  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  24. 


894  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801-1805 

mitted  to  the  demands  of  petty  Mohammedan  despots  for  black- 
mail, and  from  time  to  time  sent  them  large  sums  of  money  or  an 
equivalent  in  presents,  in  order  to  secure  immunity  for  their  mer- 
chant vessels  on  the  Mediterranean.  When  the  United  States  be- 
came independent  it  adopted  the  European  custom  of  paying  for  a 
similar  immunity,  and  from  time  to  time  sent  cargoes  of  presents, 
including  barrels  of  money,  to  the  rulers  of  Algiers,  Morocco, 
Tripoli  and  Tunis  for  the  privilege  of  navigating  the  high  seas, 
the  common  property  of  all  nations.  During  the  last  ten  years  not 
less  than  two  million  dollars  had  been  thus  expended  in  the  form 
of  ransoms,  gifts  and  tributes ;  but  in  spite  of  this  generous  tribute 
our  consuls  were  insulted,  our  vessels  seized  and  our  sailors  were 
frequently  captured  and  reduced  to  slavery,  and  to  secure  their 
ransom  additional  sums  were  occasionally  sent  over.  In  1801  the 
Pasha  of  Tripoli,  who  had  received  presents  and  $83,000  in  cash 
under  the  treaty  of  1796,  complained  that  the  United  States  was 
not  treating  him  with  the  same  liberality  that  it  was  the  ruler  of 
Algiers,  as  evidenced  by  the  recent  treaty  with  that  potentate,  but 
instead  was  putting  him  off  with  empty  professions  of  flattery.  He 
therefore  demanded  an  increase  of  the  tribute;  but  receiving  no 
satisfaction  he  declared  war.  Instead,  however,  of  sending  over 
a  handsome  bribe,  Jefferson,  who  years  before,  as  a  member  of 
of  the  Continental  Congress,  had  advocated  war  instead  of  tribute 
as  the  proper  method  of  dealing  with  the  Barbary  pirates,  dis- 
patched to  the  Mediterranean  a  squadron  under  Commodore  Dale 
—  consisting  of  some  of  the  same  vessels  which  he  was  preparing 
to  lay  up  in  the  east  branch  of  the  Potomac  to  furnish  food  for 
Maryland  worms  —  to  teach  the  petty  despot  that  the  United 
States  would  no  longer  submit  to  his  insults  and  demands  for  black- 
mail. Reaching  the  Mediterranean  in  July,  1801,  Dale  captured 
a  Tripolitan  cruiser,  blockaded  Tripoli,  and  made  such  a  display 
of  his  vessels  as  to  overawe  not  only  Tripoli  but  the  other  Barbary 
powers,  and  to  cause  them  to  respect  the  American  flag  and  to  be 
contented  with  the  presents  to  which  they  were  entitled  under  the 
treaty.22  This  was  a  new  method  of  dealing  with  these  pirates, 
and  the  honor  of  its  adoption  belongs  to  the  United  States.  Jef- 
ferson's conduct  in  this  respect  was  applauded  at  home  by  men 
of  all  parties,  and  the  whole  affair  must  have  gone  far  toward 

22  Henry  Adams,   "  History  of   the  United   States,"  vol.   i.   p.   245. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       395 

1801-1805 

convincing  him  of  the  fallacy  of  his  theory  with  regard  to  the 
uselessness  of  a  navy. 

While  the  war  with  Tripoli  was  in  progress  Jefferson's  admin- 
istration had  scored  a  great  diplomatic  triumph,  as  a  result  of 
which  the  territorial  area  of  the  United  States  was  more  than 
doubled.  This  was  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  with  France  for 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  From  the  time  of  the  Revolution  the 
question  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River  had  been  one 
of  continual  agitation,  since  this  great  waterway  afforded  the  only 
practicable  outlet  to  the  sea  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  West.  It 
was  essential  to  their  prosperity,  and,  as  Jefferson  said,  whoever 
controlled  New  Orleans  and  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  was  the 
natural  enemy  of  the  United  States.23  Spain  had  owned  the  mouth 
of  the  river,  a  fact  which  was  a  source  of  continual  annoyance  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  and  in  1795  had  granted  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  a  right  of  deposit  at  New  Or- 
leans for  a  period  of  three  years.  Since  1763  she  had  also  owned 
all  the  territory  west  of  the  river,  but  the  government  had  no  fear 
of  her,  in  spite  of  the  vexatious  restrictions  which  she  might  impose 
upon  the  right  of  navigation.  Indeed,  Jefferson  in  a  letter  to  Gov- 
ernor Claiborne  of  the  Mississippi  Territory  in  July,  1801,  went 
so  far  as  to  say  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  considered 
the  Spanish  possession  of  Louisiana  as  "  most  favorable  to  our  in- 
terests," and  that  we  should  "  see  with  extreme  pain  any  other 
nation  substituted  for  her."  24  But  already  rumors  were  reaching 
the  United  States  that  Spain  contemplated  retroceding  Louisiana  to 
France,  and  the  reports  caused  intense  anxiety.  "  Nothing,"  said 
Jefferson,  speaking  of  this  report,  "  has  produced  more  uneasy 
sensations  through  the  body  of  the  nation  since  the  Revolution."  25 
Finally,  in  May,  1802,  the  suspicions  of  Jefferson  were  confirmed  by 
the  receipt  of  news  that  Spain  had  already  by  the  secret  treaty  of 
San  Ildefonso,  concluded  in  October,  1800,  nearly  two  years 
previous,  ceded  Louisiana  to  France.  Jefferson,  upon  receiving  the 
news,  declared  that  "  the  day  France  takes  possession  of  New  Or- 
leans fixes  the  sentence  which  is  to  restrain  her  forever  within  her 
lowwater  mark.  It  seals  the  union  of  two  nations,  who,  in  con- 
junction, can  maintain  exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.     From 

23  Read  Ogg,  "The  Opening  of  the  Mississippi,"  ch.  ix. 

2*  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  404. 

25  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  189. 


396  T  II  E     UNI  T  ED     S  T  ATES 

1801-1806 

that  moment  we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British  fleet  and  na- 
tion." 28  About  the  same  time  matters  were  further  complicated 
by  the  act  of  the  Spanish  intendant  at  New  Orleans  in  withdraw- 
ing from  the  Americans  the  right  of  deposit  under  which  the  in- 
habitants of  the  West  had  been  permitted  to  send  their  goods  down 
the  Mississippi  River  to  the  sea  without  the  payment  of  duties  at 
New  Orleans.27  In  this  situation  it  was  decided  that  an  effort 
should  be  made  to  purchase  New  Orleans  and  West  Florida  from 
France,  which  would  insure  to  the  United  States  the  control  of 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi,  and  this  was  all  that  was  wanted. 
For  this  purpose  the  President  appointed  James  Monroe,  acting 
with  the  resident  minister,  Mr.  Livingston,  to  conduct  the  negotia- 
tions —  "  negotiations  upon  the  outcome  of  which,"  said  Jefferson, 
in  giving  them  their  instructions,  "  the  future  destinies  of  our  coun- 
try hang."  After  the  brief  Peace  of  Amiens,  England  and  France 
were  on  the  point  of  renewing  the  war,  and  Napoleon  quickly  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  his  American  possessions  would  doubtless 
be  an  element  of  weakness  instead  of  strength.  According  to 
Marbois,  the  negotiator  upon  the  part  of  France,  and  the  historian 
of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  diplomacy,  the  First  Consul  submitted 
to  his  counselors  the  American  proposition  with  the  following  re- 
marks :  "  They  only  ask  of  me  one  town  in  Louisiana ;  but  I 
already  consider  the  colony  as  entirely  lost,  and  it  appears  to  me 
that  in  the  hands  of  this  growing  power  it  will  be  more  useful  to  the 
policy  and  even  to  the  commerce  of  France  than  if  I  attempt  to 
retain  it.  Irresolution  and  deliberation  are  no  longer  in  season. 
I  renounce  Louisiana.  It  is  not  only  New  Orleans  that  I  will  cede, 
it  is  the  whole  colony  without  any  reservation.  ...  I  direct 
you  to  negotiate  this  affair  with  the  envoys  of  the  United  States. 
Do  not  even  await  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Monroe.  Have  an  interview 
this  very  day  with  Mr.  Livingston."  28 

The  offer  of  Napoleon  to  sell  his  whole  domain  in  America 
came  as  a  great  surprise  to  Monroe  and  Livingston,  and  at  first  they 
were  quite  as  much  puzzled  as  delighted,  since  they  had  no  instruc- 
tions to  buy  more  than  the  territory  necessary  to  secure  control  of 
the  mouth  of  the  river.  It  was  impossible  to  have  recourse  to  the 
government  for  more  ample   instructions,   for  on  account  of  the 

20  "Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  viii.  p.   144. 

27  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  421. 

"8  Marbois,   "  History   of   Louisiana,"   pp.    264,   274. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       397 

1801-1805 

crude  means  of  communication  then  existing  a  delay  of  not  less 
than  six  months  would  have  been  required  —  a  delay  which  in 
the  present  case  would  doubtless  have  proved  fatal  to  the  negotia- 
tions. In  this  situation  the  envoys  proceeded  with  the  negotiations, 
and  with  remarkable  speed,  considering  the  traditional  slowness  of 
diplomacy  a  hundred  years  ago,  concluded  a  treaty  with  Napoleon, 
not  only  for  the  cession  of  New  Orleans  and  West  Florida,  but 
for  the  whole  of  the  Louisiana  territory,  stretching  far  away,  north 
and  west,  to  the  Canadian  frontier.  The  price  finally  agreed  upon 
was  sixty  million  francs  for  the  territory  and  twenty  millions  in 
satisfaction  of  American  claims  against  France  for  unlawful  cap- 
tures —  a  total  of  about  $15,000,000.  The  terms  of  the  treaty  pro- 
vided that  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  should  be  admitted 
to  the  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  incorporated  into  the  Union  as  soon  as  consistent  with 
the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  seventh  article 
granted  to  the  inhabitants  of  France  and  Spain  special  privileges  in 
the  ports  of  Louisiana  for  twelve  years. 

On  account  of  English  naval  supremacy  Napoleon  knew  that 
he  would  probably  not  be  able  to  hold  Louisiana,  and  accordingly 
offered  it  to  the  Americans  for  a  small  sum,  remarking  after  the 
conclusion  of  the  treaty  that  he  had  just  given  England  a  maritime 
rival  that  would  sooner  or  later  humble  her  pride.29  Moreover, 
the  failure  of  the  expedition  to  San  Domingo  had  dampened  his 
colonial  enthusiasm  and  turned  his  thoughts  toward  a  European 
empire.  The  territory  acquired  by  the  treaty  was  over  eight  hun- 
dred thousand  square  miles,  thus  costing  less  than  four  cents  an 
acre.  When  the  treaty  was  sent  to  the  President  he  was  half- 
delighted,  half-perplexed.  He  was  the  founder  and  leader  of  the 
party  whose  one  overshadowing  principle  was  strict  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  so  far  as  the  powers  of  the  general  government 
were  concerned.  Now  he  was  called  upon  to  do  an  act  for  which 
no  authority  could  be  found  in  the  Constitution.  To  purchase 
Louisiana  would  be  the  most  flagrant  instance  of  loose  construc- 
tion in  the  history  of  the  government.  "  The  Constitution,"  he 
said,  in  a  letter  to  John  Breckenridge,  "  has  made  no  provision  for 
our  holding  foreign  territory,  still  less  for  incorporating  foreign 
nations  into  our  Union.  .  .  .  The  executive,  seizing  the  fugi- 
tive occurrence  which  so  much  advances  the  good  of  our  country, 
29  Ogg,   "  The   Opening   of  the   Mississippi,"  p.   582. 


398  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801-1805 

have  done  an  act  beyond  the  Constitution."  30  And  again :  "  Our 
peculiar  security  is  in  possession  of  a  written  Constitution;  let  us 
not  make  it  a  blank  paper  by  construction."  His  first  thought  was 
to  propose  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  an  "  act  of  indem- 
nity," as  he  called  it,  empowering  the  government  to  acquire 
foreign  territory,  and  he  actually  prepared  a  draft  for  this  purpose, 
but  after  a  brief  reflection  he  readily  saw  that  under  the  clumsy 
method  of  amending  the  Constitution  speedy  ratification  would  be 
impossible,  and  that  delay  might  lead  to  the  failure  of  the  treaty. 
For  once  Jefferson  threw  aside  his  theory  of  a  strict  construction, 
decided  to  send  the  treaty  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  and  sug- 
gested that  the  less  said  about  the  necessity  of  amendment  the 
better.31  The  treaty  was  duly  ratified  by  a  vote  of  24  to  7,  the 
strict  constructionists  thus  presenting  to  the  country  the  spectacle 
of  a  party  scattering  its  own  cherished  theories  to  the  winds  and 
supporting  with  unanimity  those  which  it  had  always  regarded 
as  dangerous  and  unconstitutional,  and  relying  for  its  justification 
upon  the  wisdom  and  necessity  of  the  act  and  hearty  wish  of  the 
people  for  its  consummation.32 

Curiously  enough,  the  only  opposition  to  the  acquisition  of 
Louisiana  came  from  the  party  of  liberal  construction  —  the  Fed- 
eralists —  some  of  whom  for  once  became  strict  constructionists, 
and  insisted  that  the  government  had  no  power  to  acquire  foreign 
territory,  at  least  no  power  to  incorporate  it  in  the  Union  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  Republic.  It  thus  happened  that  Federalists 
and  Republicans  each  drew  their  arguments  from  the  other's  ar- 
senal. But  the  Federalists  advanced  the  further  argument  that  the 
Union  was  a  partnership,  and  that  new  members  could  not  be 
admitted  except  by  unanimous  consent, —  Griswold  of  Connecticut, 
the  House  leader,  going  so  far  as  to  predict  that  the  accession  of 
so  vast  a  territory  would  at  no  distant  day  lead  to  the  subversion  of 
the  Union.  This  was  mainly  the  result  of  New  England's  tra- 
ditional jealousy  of  the  West,  which  was  first  prominently  brought 
out  in  the  Philadelphia  convention  of  1787.  It  was  but  natural 
that  the  people  of  this  section  should  look  with  apprehension  upon 
the  extension  of  the  western  boundaries,  since  in  the  course  of 

so "  Jefferson's   Works,"  vol.  viii.   p.  244. 

31  "  Jefferson's  Works,"  vol.  viii.  p.  245.  For  a  rather  severe  criticism  of 
Jefferson  for  "  violating  the  Constitution,"  see  Von  Hoist,  "  Constitutional  His- 
tory of  the  United  Staates,"  vol.  i.  pp.   190-192. 

32  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  201. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       399 

1801-1805 

time  it  would  mean  the  destruction  of  New  England's  balance  of 
power  and  the  diminution  of  her  influence  in  the  Union.  Others 
objected  that  the  boundaries  of  Louisiana  were  in  dispute  and 
might,  therefore,  lead  to  war;  while  still  others  insisted  that  the 
price  paid  was  too  high  —  that  it  would  equal  over  four  hundred 
tons  of  silver,  would  require  over  eight  hundred  wagons  to  contain 
it,  would  provide  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  country  with 
three  dollars,  and  the  like.33  The  Federalist  opposition,  however, 
was  futile  in  the  face  of  the  general  belief  that  the  country  had 
made  a  splendid  bargain.  The  treaty  was  ratified,  as  stated,  and 
possession  of  the  Territory  was  formally  entered  upon  in  December, 
1803,  by  the  new  governor,  William  C.  C.  Claiborne,  late  governor 
of  the  Mississippi  Territory.  The  American  flag  was  hoisted  over 
the  Cabildo  a  few  days  before  Christmas,  "  amidst  the  acclamations 
of  the  inhabitants."  Thus  Louisiana  passed  forever  from  the  con- 
trol of  France.  Few  diplomatic  events  have  had  a  more  important 
influence  on  the  history  of  the  United  States  than  the  conclusion  of 
the  treaty  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana.  Besides  adding  900,000 
square  miles  to  the  national  domain,  it  removed  an  old  source  of 
disaffection  in  the  West,  increased  immensely  the  strategic  power 
of  the  nation,  made  necessary  the  acquisition  of  Florida,  brought 
about  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  Mexican  War,  increased 
the  thirst  for  slavery,  and  thus  indirectly  contributed  to  the 
chain  of  causes  which  led  ultimately  to  the  Civil  War.34 
Fortunate  it  was  that  Jefferson  had  enlarged  views  of  the  future 
of  the  country,  and  was  able  to  put  aside  his  narrow  and  precon- 
ceived opinions  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  and 
welcome  an  opportunity  of  such  vast  import  to  the  Republic.  In 
March  of  the  following  year  Congress  passed  an  act  providing  a 
government  for  the  Territory.  The  northern  portion,  embracing 
Missouri,  the  only  inhabited  part  north  of  New  Orleans,  was 
made  the  District  of  Louisiana,  and  for  purposes  of  government 
was  attached  to  the  Territory  of  Indiana,  greatly  to  the  disgust  of 
the  inhabitants  of  this  region,  who  in  time  held  a  convention  and 
formally  protested  against  this  quasi-foreign  bondage.35  The 
southern  portion,  embracing  roughly  what  is  now  the  State  of 
Louisiana,  was  called  the  Territory  of  Orleans,  and  placed  tem- 

33  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  630. 

34  Foster,  "  Century  of  American   Diplomacy,"  p.  204. 

35  Thomas,  "  Military  Government  of  Newly  Acquired  Territory,"  p.  44. 


400  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1801-1805 

porarily  under  the  administration  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  who  was  authorized  to  exercise  all  the  military,  civil  and 
judicial  powers  at  the  time  exercised  by  the  officers  of  the  existing 
government.  Thus  Louisiana  started  on  its  career  as  an  American 
territory,  under  the  absolute  authority  of  Thomas  Jefferson.36 

Louisiana  had  been  lightly  acquired,  but  with  it  came  a  per- 
plexing boundary  dispute.  The  treaty  of  cession  gave  us  the 
Territory,  "  with  the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands 
of  Spain,  and  that  it  had  when  France  possessed  it,  and  such  as  it 
should  be  after  the  treaties  subsequently  entered  into  between  Spain 
and  other  states."  Neither  phrase  explained  the  other,  but  they 
were  on  the  contrary  contradictory.  The  United  States  at  once 
claimed  West  Florida  on  the  ground  that  Louisiana  in  the  hands 
of  France  extended  to  the  Perdido  River,  while  Louisiana,  in 
the  hands  of  Spain,  extended  only  to  the  Iberville  River.  Both 
Monroe  and  Livingston  firmly  believed  that  it  was  actually  included 
in  the  purchase,  and  Marbois  seems  to  have  been  of  the  same  opin- 
ion.37 A  territory  with  uncertain  boundaries  had,  therefore,  been 
annexed,  and  the  outcome  of  the  long  dispute  will  only  appear 
at  a  much  later  time.  Little  was  known  of  the  great  region  thus 
acquired.  Except  along  the  Mississippi  from  St.  Louis  to  New 
Orleans  the  country  was  uninhabited  save  by  Indians.  The  in- 
habitants of  the  lower  Territory  consisted  principally  of  French, 
with  a  few  Spanish  Creoles,  English,  Germans  and  negroes,  the 
aggregate  being  less  than  50,000,  of  whom  16,000  were  slaves  and 
1,300  free  persons  of  color.  The  upper  portion  of  the  Territory 
contained  about  6,000  inhabitants,  mostly  about  St.  Louis.  In 
a  special  message  to  Congress  concerning  the  cession,  Jefferson  re- 
ferred to  an  immense  glittering  white  salt  mountain  somewhere  in 
Louisiana,  said  to  be  one  hundred  and  eighty  miles  long  and  forty- 
five  in  width,  and  also  mentioned  other  marvelous  natural  curiosi- 
ties supposed  to  exist  in  the  new  domain.38 

Even  before  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana  Jefferson  had  shown 
a  lively  interest  in  the  exploration  of  the  West,  and  now  that  it 
belonged  to  the  United  States  he  sent  Meriwether  Lewis  and  Wil- 
liam Clark  to  make  an  official  exploration,  having  in  the  meantime 

n8  For  a  good  account  of  the  legal  nature  of  this  Government,  see  Thomas, 
"  Military   Government   of   Newly   Acquired    Territory,"  pp.   24-44. 
37  Schotilcr,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  56. 
:,R  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  631. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       401 

1801-1805 

induced  Congress  to  appropriate  the  necessary  funds  to  cover  the 
expenses  of  the  party.  The  expedition,  consisting  of  some  thirty 
of  forty  individuals,  started  from  St.  Louis  in  May,  1804,  as- 
cended the  Missouri  River,  crossed  the  great  divide,  and  floated 
down  the  Columbia  River,  reaching  the  Pacific  Ocean  in  November, 

1806.  The  explorers  then  returned  to  St.   Louis  in   September, 

1807,  having  traveled  9,000  miles,  and  made  a  report,  furnishing 
the  first  definite  information  of  the  geographical  condition  of  the 
new  Territory. 

In  the  year  of  their  return  Zebulon  Pike  was  sent  to  explore 
the  region  about  the  headwaters  of  the  Mississippi,  and  after 
finishing  the  task  he  penetrated  the  mountainous  region  of  Colo- 
rado and  New  Mexico,  discovering  the  great  peak  in  Colorado 
which  still  bears  his  name.  These  western  expeditions  were  but 
another  phase  of  the  interest  in  the  country's  progress  and  the 
eagerness  for  scientific  knowledge.  Following  closely  upon  them 
in  1807  came  the  first  successful  operation  of  the  steamboat  by 
Robert  Fulton  on  the  Hudson.  Before  a  crowd  of  excited  specta- 
tors the  little  boat  which  he  had  named  the  Clermont  started  on  its 
trial  trip  August  17,  and  proved  to  be  a  success.  Four  years  later 
the  first  steamboat  passed  down  the  Mississippi  from  Pittsburg  to 
New  Orleans.  These  events  are  important  landmarks  in  the  ma- 
terial progress  of  the  country,  and  are  quite  as  worthy  of  note 
as  political  or  constitutional  changes,  for  they  were  to  make  the 
Union  possible  over  an  extent  of  territory  undreamed  of  by  the 
founders. 

As  the  time  for  the  Presidential  election  of  1804  drew  near, 
it  was  clear  that  the  Republicans  would  win  by  a  large  majority. 
The  country  had  been  prosperous  during  Jefferson's  first  term,  the 
government  had  been  conducted  with  economy;  the  national  debt 
had  been  largely  reduced;  the  national  honor  had  been  defended 
against  the  Barbary  pirates,  and  above  all  the  national  domain  had 
been  doubled  in  extent.  Jefferson's  popularity  was  now  at  its  zenith, 
and  he  was  unanimously  renominated  in  February,  1804,  by  a 
caucus  of  the  Republican  senators  and  representatives,  with  George 
Clinton,  many  times  governor  of  New  York,  as  his  associate  for 
Vice  President.  The  Federalists,  now  most  unpopular,  numbered 
but  a  handful,  and  their  strength  was  confined  almost  entirely  to 
New  England.  Some  of  them  had  vigorously  opposed  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana,  while  others,  like  Timothy  Pickering,  had  pro- 


402  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1804-1805 

posed  the  withdrawal  of  the  Eastern  States  from  the  Union,  and 
the  formation  of  an  Eastern  confederacy.39 

The  disaffected  elements  now  made  a  desperate  effort  to  secure 
control  of  New  York  State  with  the  aid  of  Aaron  Burr,  then 
Vice  President,  who  had  been  repudiated  by  the  Jefferson  wing 
of  the  Republican  party.40  The  former  contingent  proposed  to 
support  Burr  as  an  independent  candidate  for  Governor,  to  succeed 
Clinton,  the  Republican  nominee  for  Vice  President,  but  Hamilton 
threw  his  influence  against  the  scheme  as  a  disgraceful  plot,  and 
Burr  was  defeated.  Brooding  over  his  downfall,  and  blaming 
Hamilton  for  his  defeat,  Burr  challenged  him  to  a  duel  and  killed 
him  on  the  field  of  Weehawken,  July  n,  1804,  on  the  same  ground 
where  Hamilton's  eldest  son  had  fallen  the  victim  of  a  duel  three 
years  before.41  Thus  was  the  country  deprived  by  a  duelist's  bul- 
let of  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic  —  a  statesman  of  pre- 
cocious intellect,  of  prodigious  energy,  of  remarkable  executive 
ability.  The  firm  friend  of  Washington,  the  idol  of  the  Federalists, 
of  whom  he  was  the  real  though  not  the  nominal  leader,  yet  he 
loved  his  country  better  than  he  did  his  party.  At  the  time  of 
his  death  at  the  early  age  of  forty-seven  he  had  had  the  most 
brilliant  career  of  any  American  then  living.  What  might  he  not 
have  accomplished  had  he  been  spared  to  devote  his  maturer  years 
to  the  good  of  his  countrymen?  The  awful  tragedy  shocked  the 
entire  country,  and  it  was  felt  that  the  act  was  little  short  of 
murder.  Burr  was  indicted  and  fled  the  State,  despised  and  exe- 
crated by  his  countrymen,  not  only  as  a  political  outcast,  but  as  a 
murderer.  His  career  henceforth  is  in  dark  contrast  to  that  of  his 
earlier  days.  One  result  of  the  affair  was  to  arouse  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  North  against  the  barbarous  practice  of  dueling 
and  to  bring  about  its  early  abandonment.  Unfortunately,  the 
practice  continued  much  longer  in  some  sections  and  was  frequently 
resorted  to  as  an  honorable  method  of  settling  disputes  among 
gentlemen. 

When  the  results  of  the  Presidential  election  were  known, 
nobody  was  surprised  at  the  result.  Jefferson  was  reelected  Presi- 
dent, and  with  him,  George  Clinton,  as  Vice  President,  the  ticket 
receiving  one  hundred  and  sixty-two  electoral  votes,  as  against 

39  See  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United   States,"  vol.  ii.  pp.   160-191. 

40  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  70. 

41  Lodge,   "  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,"  p.   250. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       403 

1805-1806 

seventy-three  at  the  last  election.  The  Federalist  candidates, 
Charles  C.  Pinckney  of  South  Carolina  and  Rufus  King  of  New 
York,  received  only  fourteen  electorial  votes,  as  against  sixty- 
five  at  the  last  election.  Only  Connecticut,  Delaware,  and  a  part 
of  Maryland,  remained  true  to  what  was  once  the  great  party  of 
Washington  and  Hamilton.42  The  party  seemed  now  on  the  verge 
of  disintegration,  although  it  was  to  regain  strength  and  continue 
in  existence  for  a  few  years  longer.  Just  before  the  presidential 
election  a  new  amendment  to  the  Constitution  —  the  twelfth  —  had 
secured  the  ratification  of  the  requisite  number  of  States,  and  had 
become  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  The  purpose  of  the  amend- 
ment was  to  remove  the  difficulties  which  arose  in  the  Presidential 
election  of  1800.  By  requiring  each  elector  to  designate  as  such 
the  person  voted  for  as  President  and  the  person  voted  for  as  Vice 
President,  the  possibility  of  the  two  candidates  coming  before  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  case  of  a  tie  was  removed,  and  with 
it  the  possibility  of  electing  the  leading  candidate  of  one  party  as 
President  and  the  leader  of  the  other  as  Vice  President.43 

IV 

THE     BURR     CONSPIRACY;     TROUBLES     WITH     GREAT     BRITAIN     AND 

FRANCE 

Jefferson's  first  term  had  been  a  period  of  domestic  tranquillity, 
while,  with  the  exception  of  the  little  war  with  Tripoli,  peace  had 
marked  our  relations  with  foreign  powers.  But  the  same  good  for- 
tune did  not  attend  his  second  term.  Besides  foreign  complications 
there  were  troubles  enough  at  home.  The  first  of  these  to  claim 
attention  is  the  so-called  Burr  conspiracy.  After  the  killing  of 
Hamilton,  Burr,  now  bankrupt  in  fortune  and  politically  ruined, 
but  brilliant  and  still  ambitious,  entered  upon  a  desperate  under- 
taking in  the  West.  Just  what  he  purposed  to  do  is  hard  to 
ascertain.  He  unfolded  vague  schemes  of  colonization  and  con- 
quest to  several  persons  of  prominence  in  the  West,  notably  General 
Wilkinson  of  the  United  States  Army,  who  villainously  entered 
into  Burr's  scheme  and  then  betrayed  him,  and  Andrew  Jackson, 
then  a  lawyer  of  Tennessee. 

42  Stanwood,  "  History  of  the   Presidency,"  p.  84. 

43  See    House,    "  The   Twelfth    Amendment." 


404  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1806 

Finally,  in  December,  1806,  he  collected  a  small  party  of 
adventurers,  not  exceeding  one  hundred  in  number,  and  mustered 
them  at  Blennerhassett's  Island,  in  the  Ohio  River.  Enlisting  the 
aid  of  Blennerhassett,  the  wealthy  owner  of  the  island,  Burr,  with 
his  adventurers,  floated  down  the  river  on  flatboats  for  a  destina- 
tion and  purpose  unknown  to  the  public.  Meantime  wild  rumors 
were  afloat  that  he  had  designs  upon  Mexico,  and  even  contem- 
plated the  detachment  of  the  Southwest  from  the  Union.  Acting 
upon  such  reports  as  he  could  gather,  Jefferson  issued  a  proclama- 
tion offering  a  reward  for  his  capture.  Early  in  1807  Burr  was 
arrested  near  Natchez  by  the  authorities  of  the  Mississippi  Ter- 
ritory, and  while  awaiting  trial  forfeited  his  recognizance  and 
fled  for  parts  unknown.  Shortly  afterwards  he  was  captured  near 
Fort  Stoddert,  Alabama,  and  taken  to  Richmond,  Virginia,  where 
he  was  arraigned  on  the  charge  of  treason  against  the  United 
States.  After  a  trial  before  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  sitting  as  cir- 
cuit judge  at  Richmond,  he  was  acquitted,  August,  1807,  on  the 
ground  of  insufficient  evidence,  since  it  could  not  be  proved  that 
his  offense  consisted  in  levying  war  against  the  United  States  or 
in  giving  its  enemies  aid  and  comfort,  as  required  by  the  Constitu- 
tion. "  The  overt  act,"  said  the  Chief  Justice,  "  must  be  proved 
according  to  the  mandates  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  act  of 
Congress,  by  two  witnesses.  It  is  not  proved  by  a  single  wit- 
ness." 44  After  his  acquittal  Burr  disappeared  from  public  notice. 
Abandoning  the  country  which  had  called  him  to  its  highest 
honor  but  one,  he  wandered  abroad  several  years,  living  incognito 
upon  scanty  remittances  from  personal  friends,  but  returned  to  New 
York  in  1812,  confirmed  in  sensual  and  impecunious  habits,  and 
there  resided  until  his  death  in  September,  1836.  Being  asked 
shortly  before  his  death  whether  he  had  meditated  designs  against 
the  Union,  he  answered,  "  No ;  I  would  as  soon  thought  of  taking 
possession  of  the  moon,  and  informing  my  friends  that  I  intended 
to  divide  it  among  them."  45  His  correspondence  with  the  British 
and  Spanish  ministers,  Merry  and  Yrujo,  contains  appeals  for 
financial  aid  from  England  and  Spain,  ostensibly  to  enable  him 
to  effect  the  secession  of  the  West.  Many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
West  were  not  without  feelings  of  disaffection  toward  the  Union 
on  account  of  the  jealousy  and  neglect  of  their  interests  by  the 

44  McCaleb.    "The    Burr    Conspiracy,"    p.    350. 

45  Partem,  "  Life  of  Aaron  Burr,"  vol.  iii.  p.  327. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       405 

1806 

East,  and  Burr  proposed  to  encourage  the  spirit  of  disaffection  and 
to  make  himself  the  leader  in  the  movement  to  bring  about  a 
separation  of  that  section  from  the  Union.  Knowing  that  England 
and  Spain  would  rejoice  at  the  disruption  of  the  United  States,  he 
solicited  their  aid  in  carrying  out  his  treasonable  scheme,  but  it 
was  never  given.  Recent  investigation,  however,  seems  to  show 
that  Burr  only  sought  to  hoodwink  the  British  and  Spanish  minis- 
ters, and  really  intended  to  use  whatever  aid  might  be  given  for 
an  expedition  against  the  Spanish  Territories  in  the  southwest.46 
An  incident  of  the  trial  at  Richmond  was  a  collision  of  authority 
between  the  executive  and  the  judiciary,  arising  from  the  action 
of  Marshall  in  issuing  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  against  Jefferson, 
ordering  him  to  produce  a  certain  paper  regarding  Burr's  trans- 
actions. This  Jefferson  refused  to  obey,  and  the  court  was  power- 
less to  enforce  its  commands.  Jefferson's  action  may  have  been 
possibly  due  to  his  dislike  of  Marshall.  He  was  greatly  disgusted 
at  Burr's  acquittal  and  declared  that  "  the  scenes  which  have  been 
enacted  at  Richmond  are  sufficient  to  fill  us  with  alarm;  now  it 
appears  that  we  have  no  law  but  the  will  of  the  judges."  47 

By  far  the  most  perplexing  difficulty,  however,  of  Jefferson's 
administration,  arose  from  the  aggressions  of  England  and  France 
upon  American  commerce.  It  will  be  remembered  that  war  be- 
tween these  two  powers  had  broken  out  in  1793,  and  had  raged 
without  interruption  until  1802,  when  by  the  Peace  of  Amiens  a 
brief  suspension  of  hostilities  followed.  In  1803  the  war  was  re- 
newed; nation  after  nation  was  dragged  into  the  contest,  and 
the  struggle  raged  with  increasing  fury  until  Napoleon  went  down 
to  defeat  at  Waterloo,  ten  years  later.  England  was  mistress  of 
the  seas,  while  Napoleon  was  invincible  on  land.  The  ships  of 
France,  Spain  and  Holland  were  driven  from  the  ocean ;  conse- 
quently these  countries  found  it  impossible  to  obtain  the  much- 
needed  products  of  their  colonies  in  the  West  Indies,  South  Amer- 
ica and  elsewhere. 

In  this  situation,  as  we  have  seen,  nothing  remained  to  France 
but  to  throw  her  colonial  trade  open  to  neutrals,  and  American 
vessels  very  soon  acquired  a  monopoly  of  this  trade,  and  became,  in 
fact,  the  principal  carriers  of  the  world.    But  by  the  so-called  "  Rule 

46  McCaleb,  "  The  Burr  Conspiracy."  p.  8. 

47  McCaleb,  "The  Burr  Conspiracy,"  p.   358;    Henry  Adams,   "History  of 
the  United  States,"  vol.  iii.  p.  451. 


406  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1806 

of  1756"  a  belligerent  was  not  permitted  to  open  to  neutrals  in 
time  of  war  its  colonial  carrying  trade  which  was  not  open  to 
them  in  time  of  peace,  and  England  therefore  claimed  the  right  to 
seize  any  neutral  vessel  carrying  a  cargo  directly  between  a  bel- 
ligerent port  and  a  colony  of  that  belligerent.  This  harsh  rule  was 
soon  evaded  in  a  legitimate  way  by  the  ingenuity  of  enterprising 
American  sailors.  The  rule  of  1756  did  not  apply  to  trade  between 
a  neutral  port  and  that  of  a  belligerent,  and,  hence,  all  that  was 
necessary  to  make  the  voyage  between  a  belligerent  and  its  colony 
lawful  was  to  break  the  voyage  by  landing  at  a  neutral  port  and  re- 
shipping  the  cargo.  Thus  an  American  vessel  sailing  from  a 
French  or  Spanish  port  in  the  West  Indies,  touching  at  New  York 
or  Charleston,  entering  the  cargo  at  the  custom  house,  reloading  on 
the  same  ship  and  proceeding  to  France  or  Spain  was  pursuing  a 
lawful  voyage. 

Such  was  the  decision  of  the  British  admiralty  court  in  April, 
1800.  Under  this  ruling  American  shipping  swarmed  upon  every 
sea.  Hundreds  of  vessels  sailed  to  the  colonial  possessions  of 
France,  Spain,  Holland  and  Italy,  loaded  with  the  products  needed 
by  belligerents,  proceeded  to  the  United  States,  broke  the  voyage, 
and  sailed  for  Europe.  In  one  year  the  customs  revenue  increased 
from  thirteen  to  twenty  million  dollars.  England  discovered  that 
under  this  practice  her  naval  supremacy  would  avail  nothing.  If 
her  continental  enemies  were  to  be  supplied  with  all  the  products 
needed,  in  spite  of  her  maritime  power,  she  could  never  cope  suc- 
cessfully with  them.  Accordingly,  in  1805,  the  British  admiralty 
court  reversed  its  previous  decision,  and  held  that  breaking  the 
voyage  at  a  neutral  port  was  an  obvious  evasion  of  the  rule  of 
1756;  that  the  intent  of  the  voyage  must  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion, and  hence  a  voyage  as  above  described  was  unlawful.  Cap- 
tures of  American  vessels  at  once  began,  and  a  prosperous  carrying 
trade  was  soon  well-nigh  destroyed.  The  number  of  captured  ves- 
sels increased  the  first  year  after  Lord  Stowell's  decision  from  39 
to  116,  and  within  three  years  350  American  vessels  were  thus 
captured  by  the  British.48 

Such  \\ere  the  British  aggressions  upon  American  commerce. 
Those  of  France  were  scarcely  less.  Napoleon,  having  suffered  a 
great  defeat  at  Trafalgar  at  the  hands  of  Lord  Nelson,  resolved  to 

48  McMaster,   "  History  of  the   People  of  the   United   States."  vol.    iii.   pp. 
220-227. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       407 

1806-1807 

destroy  English  trade  with  the  continent  regardless  of  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  by  means  of  the  "  Continental  System  " ;  that  is,  by  the 
exclusion  of  English  goods  from  the  ports  of  that  part  of  Europe 
which  was  under  his  control,  or  in  alliance  with  him.  This  meant 
the  virtual  cutting  off  of  commercial  intercourse  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  continent.  The  announcement  of  this  resolution 
was  followed  in  May,  1806,  by  a  retaliatory  British  Order  in  Coun- 
cil, which  declared  the  whole  coast  of  Europe,  from  the  Brest  to  the 
Elbe  River,  a  distance  of  some  eight  hundred  miles,  to  be  under  a 
blockade,  and,  of  course,  closed  to  neutral  trade.  No  blockading 
squadron  was  stationed  outside  the  interdicted  ports  to  give  notice 
of  the  blockade  and  to  warn  approaching  vessels;  and,  what  was 
worse,  American  ships  bound  for  Europe  were  presumed  to  be 
destined  for  a  blockaded  port,  and,  therefore,  liable  to  capture  by 
British  cruisers.  In  November  of  the  same  year  Napoleon  retali- 
ated with  the  Berlin  Decree  —  so  called  from  the  place  of  proclama- 
tion —  declaring  all  the  British  Islands  to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade, 
interdicting  all  trade  therewith,  and  forbidding  all  vessels  touch- 
ing at  British  ports  from  entering  French  ports.  This  order  was 
directed  against  neutral  trade,  and  as  the  Americans  were,  prac- 
tically the  only  neutral  carriers  left,  they  were  the  chief  sufferers. 
Notwithstanding  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1800,  Great 
Britain  again  retaliated  by  an  Order  in  Council  in  January,  1807, 
which  forbade  all  neutral  trade  with  France  and  her  allies  and  de- 
pendencies,, and  by  an  order  of  November,  the  same  year,  neutral 
vessels  bound  for  blockaded  ports  were  authorized  to  be  seized 
unless  they  had  touched  at  a  British  port  and  paid  duties.  These 
orders  were  followed  by  a  counter  decree  of  Napoleon  in  December, 
1807, — tne  Milan  Decree, —  which  directed  the  seizure  and  for- 
feiture of  every  neutral  vessel  which  allowed  itself  to  be  searched 
by  a  British  vessel,  which  should  touch  at  a  British  port  and  pay 
duty,  or  which  should  be  found  on  the  high  seas  or  elsewhere 
bound  to  or  from  any  British  port.49  These  orders  and  decrees 
virtually  put  all  Europe  under  a  paper  blockade,  and  whether  the 
American  vessels  sailed  from  or  to  a  British  port  or  a  continental 
port,  it  was  liable  to  capture.  In  1807,  194  American  vessels  were 
captured  by  the  British  authorities,  and  a  considerable  number  by 
the  French. 

But  the  aggressions  upon  neutral  commerce  were  not  the  only 

49  J.   B.  Moore.  "  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  60. 


408  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1807 

grievances  of  the  Americans  against  the  European  belligerents. 
There  was  the  old  question  of  the  impressment  of  American  seamen 
by  British  cruisers.  Almost  from  the  foundation  of  the  govern- 
ment Great  Britain  had  claimed  and  had  exercised  the  right  of 
stopping  American  merchant  vessels  on  the  high  seas  and  reclaim- 
ing any  British  subject  found  thereon.  The  matter  had  been 
aggravated  by  the  great  increase  in  the  number  of  English  subjects 
who  had  lately  enlisted  in  the  American  merchant  service,  mainly  as 
a  result  of  the  enormous  expansion  of  American  commerce,  and  the 
consequent  increase  in  the  demand  for  trained  seamen.  With  the 
expansion  of  commerce  came  also  an  increase  in  the  wages  of  sea- 
men, the  amount  being  some  three  times  that  allowed  by  British 
merchantmen,  as  a  consequence  of  which  British  seamen  deserted 
in  great  numbers  and  entered  the  American  merchant  marine. 
Whole  crews  would  sometimes  go  ashore  in  an  American  port  and 
join  the  American  service.  Many  of  these  seamen  took  out  natural- 
ization papers  and  became  American  citizens;  but  Great  Britain 
stood  by  the  doctrine  of  indefeasible  allegiance,  and  insisted  that 
no  British  subject  could  divest  himself  of  his  citizenship  without  her 
consent.  Consequently  American  naturalization  papers  were  of  no 
avail  against  British  searching  officers,  and  their  disposition  to 
disregard  naturalization  certificates  was  heightened  by  the  knowl- 
edge that  they  were  readily  transferable  from  one  sailor  to  an- 
other, and  easily  forged. 

Moreover,  the  task  of  distinguishing  British  sailors  from 
American  sailors  was  not  always  easy.  At  first  the  British  naval 
officers  seem  to  have  made  an  honest  effort  to  impress  only  those 
of  British  birth ;  but  when  the  demand  for  seamen  grew  pressing 
on  account  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  the  officers  were  inclined  to 
give  themselves  the  benefit  of  every  doubt,  and  sometimes  able- 
bodied  seamen  were  presumed  to  be  of  English  birth  unless  they 
could  prove  the  contrary,  which  was  usually  a  difficult,  if  not 
an  impossible  task.  As  the  aggressions  on  American  rights  con- 
tinued, the  feeling  in  favor  of  war,  especially  against  England,  in- 
creased. But  to  Jefferson  war  did  not  appear  necessary,  and, 
besides,  as  a  result  of  his  own  policy,  we  were  not  prepared  for 
war.  The  army  and  navy  had  been  reduced  to  insignificant  pro- 
portions, and  the  fortifications  had  been  neglected.  To  build  new 
war  vessels  and  fortify  the  coast  and  harbors  would  interfere  with 
his  cherished  policy  of  retrenchment.     He,  therefore,  resorted  to 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       409 

1807-1809 

schemes  which  served  only  to  excite  the  ridicule  of  the  Federalists 
and  of  some  Republicans  as  well.  One  of  these  was  the  "  gunboat 
system,"  by  which  the  defense  of  the  country  was  entrusted  to 
a  fleet  of  gunboats  which  were  built  according  to  Jefferson's  or- 
ders. They  were  unpretentious  looking  little  craft,  each  carrying  a 
small  gun  at  the  stern,  and  were  to  be  used  against  the  enemy  in 
time  of  war,  but  in  time  of  peace  were  to  be  hauled  up  under  sheds 
and  protected  from  the  weather.  They  were  utterly  useless  when 
war  came,  and  rendered  no  service  except  to  afford  amusement  for 
the  Federalist  wits. 

Meantime,  Jefferson  was  trying  to  reach  an  understanding 
with  Great  Britain,  and  for  this  purpose  he  sent  James  Monroe  and 
William  Pinkney  to  London  as  special  envoys.  In  December,  1806, 
they  concluded  a  treaty  which  contained  no  prohibition  against  im- 
pressment, no  definition  of  a  lawful  blockade,  made  no  provision 
for  indemnification  of  American  owners  for  unlawful  captures,  no 
recognition  of  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  participate  in  the 
British  West  India  trade,  and  no  acknowledgment  of  the  American 
doctrine  that  "  free  ships  make  free  goods."  It  was  so  unacceptable 
to  Jefferson  that  he  did  not  even  communicate  it  to  the  Senate.50 
In  the  next  place  Jefferson  recommended  a  non-importation  act  as 
applied  to  English  manufactured  goods  and  the  goods  of  English 
colonies,  and  the  act  was  passed  in  April,  1806,  but  it  was  sus- 
pended after  a  duration  of  about  one  month  and  a  half.  All  these 
measures,  as  well  as  diplomatic  remonstrances,  were  without  avail. 
Finally,  in  June,  1807,  the  last  straw  was  added  by  a  British  out- 
rage near  Norfolk.  As  the  American  frigate  Chesapeake  was  pro- 
ceeding down  the  Potomac  for  a  cruise  to  the  Mediterranean,  the 
British  frigate  Leopard  overhauled  her,  after  exposing  the  vessel 
to  a  raking  fire  and  killing  a  number  of  the  crew,  sent  on  board 
a  searching  party  against  the  will  of  her  commander  and  carried 
away  four  sailors,  of  whom  three  were  Americans.  The  comman- 
der of  the  Chesapeake  was  unable  to  resist  the  attack  of  the 
Leopard,  his  guns  not  being  ready  for  action,  his  crew  untrained, 
and  the  vessel  altogether  unfit  for  immediate  action.  The  news  of 
this  last  outrage  set  the  nation  aflame  with  indignation,  and  in 
many  towns  and  cities  public  meetings  were  held  and  resolutions 
passed  denouncing  the  outrage  and  demanding  reparation  or  war. 

50  Schouler,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  159;  Henry  Adams, 
vol.  iii.  p.  419. 


410  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1807-1809 

Jefferson  declared  that  "  the  country  had  never  been  in  such  a  state 
of  excitement  since  the  battle  of  Lexington  ";  yet  he  was  still  op- 
posed to  war,  and  the  extent  of  his  action  was  to  issue  a  proclama- 
tion ordering  all  British  armed  vessels  out  of  American  waters. 
He  then  summoned  Congress  in  extra  session,  October,  1807,  an(i 
recommended  an  embargo  on  American  shipping.  This  was  a  part 
of  his  policy  of  "  peaceable  coercion,"  by  which  he  believed  that  the 
European  nations  could  be  forced  to  respect  our  rights  by  withhold- 
ing from  them  American  commerce.  But,  as  events  showed,  Jeffer- 
son had  overestimated  the  value  of  that  commerce  to  England;  it 
did  not  prove  to  be  absolutely  essential  to  her  existence  and  its 
paralysis  was  ruinous  to  us.  Jefferson's  influence  with  Congress, 
however,  was  omnipotent,  his  recommendation  was  enacted  into 
law,  and  no  American  merchant  vessel  could  any  longer  leave 
American  water  for  any  foreign  port,  and  coasting  vessels  were 
required  to  give  bonds  to  land  only  at  American  ports. 

The  French  and  English  aggressions  had  seriously  crippled 
American  commerce,  but  Jefferson's  embargo  completely  destroyed 
it.  "  It  was,"  said  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  "  like  cutting  off 
the  toes  to  cure  the  corns."  Ships,  with  their  cargoes,  rotted  in 
port,  and  thousands  of  seamen  were  thrown  out  of  employment. 
No  foreign  market  was  available  for  disposing  of  surplus  products, 
industry  was  at  a  standstill,  and  general  business  stagnation  pre- 
vailed throughout  the  country.  Exports  dropped  in  one  year  from 
$110,000,000  to  $22,000,000;  in  1809  import  duties  fell  from 
$16,000,000  to  $7,000,000.  The  price  of  wheat  declined  three- 
fifths.  The  distress  was  especially  great  among  the  shipping  in- 
terests of  New  England,  and  among  the  tobacco  growers  of  Vir- 
gina.  As  the  ruinous  effects  of  the  Embargo  Act  increased,  the 
difficulty  of  enforcing  it  increased  also,  and  smuggling  and  evasion 
became  a  fine  art.51  The  coasting  trade,  as  said,  was  permitted, 
and  vessels  bound  for  New  Orleans  often  found  it  convenient  to 
run  into  West  India  ports,  exchange  their  cargoes  for  tropical 
products,  and  with  false  manifests  proceed  to  New  Orleans.  Sys- 
tematic smuggling  across  the  Canadian  and  Florida  borders  was 
also  carried  on,  in  some  cases  through  most  ingenious  methods. 
The  stringency  of  the  embargo  law  was  increased  by  several 
supplementary  acts  requiring  heavier  bonds  of  those  engaged  in 

51  See  McMaster,  "  History  of  the   People  of  the  United   States"  vol.   iii. 
pp.  300-306. 


JEFFERSONIAN     REPUBLICANISM       411 

1809 

the  coasting  trade,  and  imposing  other  restrictions,  including  a 
force  provision.  Had  the  embargo  brought  England  to  terms  there 
might  have  been  some  compensation  for  the  suffering  which  it 
occasioned;  but  Lord  Castlereagh  was  able  to  boast  that  it  was 
"  operating  more  forcibly  in  our  favor  than  any  measure  of  hos- 
tility we  could  call  forth  without  war  actually  declared."  Its 
operation  as  against  France  was  equally  ineffective,  the  French 
minister  declaring  that  it  was  applauded  by  the  emperor.  In  April, 
1808,  Napoleon  issued  the  Bayonne  Decree,  directing  that  all  Amer- 
ican vessels  entering  Continental  ports  should  be  captured,  since, 
under  the  American  embargo,  they  had  no  right  to  be  out  of 
American  ports.  In  other  words  the  emperor,  in  the  kindness  of 
his  heart,  proposed  to  help  the  United  States  enforce  its  policy  of 
non-intercourse. 

Meantime  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  embargo  at  home  con- 
tinued to  increase.  In  New  England  the  discontent  ripened  almost 
to  rebellion,  and  caused  the  great  majority  of  the  people  to  desert 
the  ranks  of  Republicanism  and  go  over  to  the  Federalists.  Jeffer- 
son was  compelled  to  admit  that  his  policy  of  peaceable  coercion  was 
not  a  success,  and,  finally,  in  February,  1809,  one  week  before  the 
expiration  of  his  term,  the  Embargo  Act  was  repealed,  after  being 
in  force  about  fourteen  months.  The  principle  of  peaceful  coercion 
was  not  entirely  abandoned,  however,  and  in  place  of  the  embargo 
a  Non-Intercourse  Act  was  substituted.  This  forbade  intercourse 
with  Great  Britain  and  France  so  long  as  they  should  persist  in  their 
hostility  to  American  trade.  Jefferson  signed  the  act  to  repeal 
the  embargo,  thus  condemning  the  principle  which  underlay  his 
whole  theory  with  respect  to  neutral  trade.  This  was  the  last 
important  act  of  his  administration.  He  retired  from  the  Presi- 
dency with  less  popularity  than  when  he  entered  upon  it;  yet  in 
spite  of  the  effects  of  the  embargo,  loving  and  respectful  tributes 
poured  in  upon  him  from  every  section  of  the  Union  except  New 
England.  His  first  term  was  a  successful  one,  but  its  brilliancy 
was  eclipsed  by  the  troubles  of  the  second.  The  one  overshadowing 
event  of  his  administration  was  the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  and  this 
is  generally  remembered,  while  too  often  the  failures  of  his  general 
policies  are  largely  overlooked  and  forgotten;  but  when  all  is  said, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  his  political  career  was  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  the  Republic.  Probably  no  President  has  so  fully  im- 
pressed his  personality  upon  the  country;  no  one  has  exerted  so 


412  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1809 

powerful  an  influence  upon  his  political  followers.  In  his  last 
annual  address  to  Congress  he  pronounced  a  brief  valedictory  to 
his  countrymen,  saying :  "  Looking  forward  with  anxiety  to  their 
future  destinies,  I  trust  that,  in  their  steady  character  unshaken  by 
difficulties,  in  their  love  of  liberty,  obedience  to  law,  and  support 
of  the  public  authorities,  I  see  a  sure  guarantee  of  the  permanence 
of  our  republic;  and,  retiring  from  the  charge  of  their  affairs,  I 
carry  with  me  the  consolation  of  a  firm  persuasion  that  Heaven 
has  in  store  for  our  beloved  country  long  ages  to  come  of  prosperity 
and  happiness."  52 

52  Richardson,  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol.  i.  p.  456. 


Chapter  XVIII 


THE   SECOND   WAR   WITH   GREAT   BRITAIN 
1809-1815 


PRELIMINARY  INCIDENTS 

AS  Jefferson's  second  term  drew  to  a  close  he  announced 
that  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  a  third  term,  thus 
following  the  example  of  Washington.  "  If,"  he  said, 
"  some  period  be  not  fixed  either  by  the  Constitution  or  by  practice, 
the  office  will,  though  nominally  elective,  become  for  life  and  then 
hereditary."  Besides,  he  had  now  reached  his  sixty-fifth  year  and 
longed  to  retire  from  public  life  to  the  quiet  of  his  beloved  Monti- 
cello.  Nevertheless  he  was  invited,  through  affectionate  addresses, 
by  many  legislatures  to  stand  for  reelection,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  had  he  consented  to  do  so  he  could  easily  have  triumphed 
over  any  other  candidate.  He  lived  almost  a  generation  longer 
after  his  retirement  from  the  Presidency,  and  devoted  his  later 
years  to  the  work  of  higher  education  in  Virginia,  particularly  the 
university  which  he  had  himself  founded  many  years  before  and 
which  was  "  the  darling  child  of  his  old  age."  While  refusing 
the  Presidency  for  himself,  however,  he  practically  named  his  suc- 
cessor, so  great  still  was  his  influence  with  his  party.  The  Re- 
publican members  of  Congress  met  in  caucus  January,  1808,  and 
nominated  Jefferson's  choice,  James  Madison,  for  the  last  eight 
years  Secretary  of  State,  for  President,  and  George  Clinton  for 
Vice  President.1  Clinton  had  been  Vice  President  during  the  last 
term,  and  as  his  office  had  been  regarded  as  the  stepping-stone  to 
the  Presidency,  he  was  a  candidate  for  first  place  on  the  ticket. 
Monroe,  supported  by  some  of  his  Virginia  friends,  who  disliked 
Madison,  was  also  a  candidate  to  succeed  Jefferson.     Pinckney  and 

1  Hunt,  "  Life  of  James  Madison." 
413 


414  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1809-1810 

King  were  renominated  by  the  Federalists,  but  Madison  was  easily 
elected,  receiving  122  electoral  votes.2  The  Federalist  candidates, 
who  received  only  fourteen  electoral  votes  in  1804,  now  received 
forty-seven,  the  increase  being  due  chiefly  to  the  unpopular  meas- 
ures of  Jefferson's  second  term  and  the  wide-spread  discontent 
occasioned  by  the  embargo.  The  dissatisfaction  in  New  England 
was  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  Federalists  carried  all  that  group 
of  States  except  Vermont.  They  also  carried  Delaware,  two  dis- 
tricts in  Maryland,  and  three  in  North  Carolina.  The  electors  were 
chosen  by  the  legislatures  in  six  States  and  by  popular  vote  in  the 
others. 

The  new  President,  like  his  predecessor,  belonged  to  the  Vir- 
ginia "  dynasty,"  and  was  inclined  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of 
his  former  chief.  He  was  a  statesman  of  wide  experience,  having 
served  in  the  Continental  Congress  and  in  the  Federal  Convention 
of  1787.  His  great  services  in  the  Convention  had  been  so  impor- 
tant as  to  win  for  him  the  enviable  title  of  "  Father  of  the  Constitu- 
tion." He  had  also  served  in  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  had 
been  a  member  of  the  first  Congress  under  the  Constitution,  and 
during  the  eight  years  of  Jefferson's  administration  had  been  Secre- 
tary of  State.  He  was,  therefore,  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
duties  of  the  office  to  which  he  was  now  called;  and,  as  Schouler 
properly  observes,  was  entitled  to  the  office  by  every  consideration 
of  merit,  seniority,  public  experience  and  patriotic  as  well  as  party 
service.3 

The  chief  problem  confronting  the  new  administration  at  the 
outset  was  the  settlement  of  the  troubles  with  England  and  France 
—  a  heritage  bequeathed  by  Jefferson.  Commercial  retaliation 
having  failed  to  bring  these  nations  to  a  sense  of  justice,  diplomacy 
and  war  remained  as  the  only  alternatives.  L,ike  Jefferson,  Madi- 
son was  opposed  to  war,  preferring  to  try  peaceful  measures  so 
long  as  they  promised  success.  By  some  he  was  charged  with  being 
timid  and  irresolute,  and  certainly  for  the  first  two  years  of  his 
administration  he  seemed  to  be  without  a  definite  policy.  The  Non- 
Intercourse  Act  which  took  the  place  of  the  embargo  was  enforced 
throughout  the  year  1809  without  accomplishing  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  intended.  It  was  then  superseded  by  an  act  passed 
in  May.   1810,  which  provided  that  if  either  England  or  France 

2  Stanwood,  "  History  of  the  Presidency,"  p.  95. 

3  Schouler.  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  187. 


WAR     OF     1812  415 

1809-1810 

would  withdraw  its  offensive  decrees  against  American  commerce, 
and  the  other  would  not,  non-intercourse  would  be  continued  against 
the  one  and  suspended  as  to  the  other.  This  measure  was  known 
as  the  "  Macon  Bill  No.  2."  Napoleon  thereupon  promised  to 
revoke  the  Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees  on  the  first  of  November, 
provided  England  would  withdraw  her  Orders  in  Council,  saying 
that  he  loved  the  Americans  and  wished  to  help  them  whenever  op- 
portunity afforded.  Madison,  believing  that  Napoleon  was  acting 
in  good  faith,  issued  a  proclamation  on  November  i,  reciting  that 
the  French  decrees  had  been  revoked,  and  establishing  non-inter- 
course with  England.  Already,  before  the  passage  of  the  Macon 
Bill,  Napoleon  had  issued  (March,  1810)  the  famous  Rambouillet 
Decree,  ordering  the  capture  and  confiscation  of  all  American  vessels 
that  had  entered  the  ports  of  France,  her  colonies,  or  her  allies  since 
the  adoption  of  the  non-intercourse  policy  in  March,  1809.  As  a 
result  of  this  decree  large  numbers  of  valuable  American  cargoes 
were  confiscated,  and  the  proceeds  turned  into  his  treasury.  These 
captures  were  continued  after  the  lying  promise  which  Madison  had 
jumped  at  had  practically  been  made,  and,  finally,  on  December 
25,  1810,  a  general  order  was  given  for  the  capture  of  all  American 
vessels  in  French  ports.  Under  this  order  some  ten  million  dollars' 
worth  of  property  was  seized  and  confiscated.  Certainly  nothing 
could  have  been  more  shameful  and  treacherous  than  Napoleon's 
conduct  toward  us  at  this  time. 

Meantime  England  was  showing  her  true  colors.  In  April, 
1809,  Mr.  Erskine,  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  informed 
the  government  that  he  was  authorized  to  make  reparation  for  the 
damage  inflicted  upon  American  commerce  by  Great  Britain. 
Thereupon,  Madison,  with  great  elation  at  what  seemed  to  be  an 
amicable  settlement  of  the  difficulty,  issued  a  proclamation  reciting 
these  facts,  and  announcing  a  resumption  of  commercial  intercourse 
with  Great  Britain.  But  again  he  was  doomed  to  disappointment, 
for  the  British  Government  promptly  disavowed  the  agreement 
made  by  Mr.  Erskine,  and  so  the  President  was  forced  to  undergo 
the  humiliation  of  issuing  another  proclamation  reviving  non-inter- 
course with  Great  Britain.  Erskine  was  promptly  recalled  for  his 
conduct  and  another  minister,  James  Jackson,  appointed  as  his 
successor.  The  new  minister  began  his  diplomatic  career  in  Amer- 
ica by  accusing  the  administration  of  cajoling  his  predecessor  into 
signing  an  agreement  which  the  government  knew   he  was  not 


416  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1810-1811 

authorized  to  do,  and  made  other  insinuations  of  bad  faith  unusual 
in  diplomatic  correspondence,  and  of  such  a  character  as  no  self- 
respecting  government  could  tolerate.  He  was,  therefore,  informed 
by  the  President  that  no  further  communication  would  be  received 
from  him,  and  he  left  Washington,  and  shortly  thereafter  (Feb- 
ruary, 1811)  our  minister  at  London,  Mr.  Pinkney,  demanded  his 
passports  and  left  England.  At  the  request  of  the  United  States 
Government  Jackson  was  recalled;  another  minister,  Mr.  Foster, 
was  sent  over,  and  a  tardy  reparation  was  made  in  November,  181 1, 
for  the  Chesapeake  affair,  but  it  was  no  settlement  of  the  difficulty 
as  a  whole.  Already  a  month  earlier,  the  two  countries  had  come 
to  blows  through  the  action  of  the  English  frigate  Little  Belt  in 
firing  upon  the  American  frigate,  The  President,  and  the  capture  of 
the  British  vessel  by  The  President. 

During  the  excitement  over  the  threatened  hostilities  with 
England  and  France,  the  attention  of  the  country  was  momentarily 
diverted  by  a  war  with  the  Indians  in  the  Northwest.  For  several 
years  they  had  shown  a  restless  spirit,  which  assumed  dangerous 
proportions  when  an  effort  was  made  by  the  Shawnee  chief,  Te- 
cumseh,  and  his  brother,  the  Prophet,  to  organize  them  into  a  vast 
confederacy  for  the  purpose  of  driving  out  the  white  settlers  of  this 
region.  Tecumseh.  together  with  some  of  his  chosen  braves,  also 
visited  the  distant  tribes  of  the  South,  the  Choctaws,  Chickasaws 
and  Creeks,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to  join  his  alliance, 
but  without  success.  These  two  leaders  succeeded  in  inciting  the 
Indians  to  attack  the  whites,  and  it  was  charged  that  they  were  en- 
couraged in  their  attitude  by  the  British,  who  probably  hoped  to 
secure  their  aid  in  the  event  of  wrar  with  the  United  States.  In 
the  autumn  of  181 1  war  broke  out  between  the  Americans  and 
the  Indians,  and  a  great  battle  was  fought  at  Tippecanoe  in  western 
Indiana,  in  the  course  of  which  the  Indians  were  defeated  by  Gen- 
eral William  Henry  Harrison.  Governor  of  the  Indiana  Territory, 
and  a  future  President  of  the  United  States.  Tecumseh  then  joined 
the  English  in  Canada,  and  fought  in  the  war  with  Great  Britain 
until  killed  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames  in  1814.  The  result  of  this 
victory  was  to  relieve  the  Northwestern  settlers  from  the  menace 
of  Indian  depredations  and  to  establish  a  high  military  reputation 
for  General  Harrison.4 

4  See  Lossing,  "  History  of  the  War  of  1812."  pp.  141-209. 


WAR     OF    18  12  417 

1811-1812 

Three  days  before  the  battle  of  Tippecanoe  a  new  Congress 
met  at  Washington  to  consider  relations  with  Great  Britain  and 
France.  It  contained  an  overwhelming  majority  of  Republican 
members,  among  whom  were  a  number  of  new  men  filled  with  the 
vigor  and  fire  of  youth  and  with  determination  not  to  submit  further 
to  the  insults  of  England  on  the  one  hand  or  of  France  on  the 
other.  Among  them  were  Henry  Clay  of  Kentucky,  John  C.  Cal- 
houn, Langdon  Cheves  and  William  Lowndes  of  South  Carolina, 
Peter  B.  Porter  of  New  York,  and  Felix  Grundy  of  Tennessee.5 
The  House  gave  earnest  of  its  spirit  by  electing  as  speaker  one  of 
the  young  members  from  the  West  —  Henry  Clay  —  who  had  just 
entered  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  first  time,  but  who 
had  previously  served  a  brief  term  in  the  Senate.  He  represented 
a  section  of  the  country  which  favored  war,  and  was  himself 
strongly  in  sympathy  with  his  constituency  on  this  point.  He  or- 
ganized the  committees  of  the  House  with  a  view  to  securing  a 
declaration  of  war,  giving  Calhoun  the  chief  place  on  the  Foreign 
Relations  Committee.  The  Eastern  members  had  shown  timidity 
in  their  attitude  toward  England  and  France  because  it  was  believed 
that  in  the  event  of  war  the  Eastern  States  would  be  the  heaviest 
sufferers.  But  the  Western  and  Southern  members  had  no  such 
fear,  and  entered  upon  a  warlike  policy  with  eagerness,  determined 
to  avenge  all  insults  upon  American  rights  regardless  of  conse- 
quences. 

There  were  several  grounds  of  opposition.  In  the  first  place 
it  was  said,  with  entire  correctness,  that  the  country  was  un- 
prepared for  war  as  a  result  of  the  condition  of  the  army  and  navy. 
Again  it  was  urged  with  equal  truth  that  our  grievances  against 
France  were  almost  as  numerous  as  those  against  England,  and 
yet  it  was  proposed  to  declare  war  against  England  alone.  The 
Federalists,  who  had  always  been  inclined  to  sympathize  with 
England,  made  much  of  this  point.  Finally  it  was  said  that  no 
more  reason  for  war  existed  then  than  had  existed  five  years  before. 
All  forms  of  opposition,  however,  were  overcome,  and  Congress  en- 
tered at  once  upon  active  preparations  for  war.  An  act  for  raising 
20,000  troops  was  passed,  and  the  President  was  empowered  to 
call  for  50,000  volunteers.  The  President  was  also  authorized  to 
require  the   State  executives  to  organize  and   hold  in  readiness 

6  Schouler,    "  History    of   the    United    States,"    vol.    ii.    p.    372. 


418  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1812 

100,000  militia;  the  army  was  reorganized;  appropriations  were 
made  for  the  purchase  of  ship  timber  and  other  materials,  and  orders 
were  given  for  the  repair  and  equipment  of  the  frigates.6  Follow- 
ing these  preliminary  acts  an  embargo  for  ninety  days  was  laid, 
and,  finally,  on  June  1,  1812,  Madison  yielded  to  the  pressure 
brought  upon  him  by  the  young  Republicans,  who  told  him  frankly 
that  unless  he  abandoned  his  dilatory  policy  his  renomination  and 
election  could  not  be  assured,  and  sent  a  message  to  Congress  re- 
counting the  long  series  of  aggressions  upon  American  commerce 
by  Great  Britain,  and  recommending  a  declaration  of  war. 

The  reasons  assigned  for  the  recommendation  were  the  im- 
pressment of  American  seamen,  depredations  by  British  cruisers  on 
American  shipping  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  capture  of  American 
cargoes  in  violation  of  the  rules  of  international  law  governing 
blockades,  and  the  Orders  in  Council.7  The  vote  on  the  declaration 
of  war  was  seventy-nine  to  forty-nine  in  the  House,  and  nineteen 
to  thirteen  in  the  Senate.  The  members  from  every  State  east  of 
Pennsylvania  voted  against  the  declaration,  while  those  from  Penn- 
sylvania and  from  the  South  and  West  voted  in  favor  of  war.8  Of 
the  ninety-eight  members  who  voted  for  the  declaration  of  war, 
seventy-six  came  from  south  of  the  Delaware  River.  Thus  the  war 
was  brought  on  by  the  South  and  the  West  against  the  opposition 
of  the  East,  whose  chief  industry  had  been  so  nearly  destroyed  by 
British  aggressions,  and  the  section  which  it  was  expected  would 
be  the  greatest  beneficiary  of  a  successful  war.  The  probable  ex- 
planation of  the  New  England  attitude  was  the  fear  that  war  with 
Great  Britain  would  result  in  a  total  destruction  of  its  commerce, 
and  so  its  merchants  preferred  to  take  its  chances  of  escaping 
capture  under  existing  conditions.  On  June  23,  five  days  after  the 
declaration  of  war,  and  before  it  was  possible  for  news  of  the 
declaration  of  war  to  have  reached  England,  the  Orders  in  Council 
were  formally  withdrawn.  This  news  reached  the  United  States 
before  active  hostilities  had  actually  begun,  but  too  late  for  any 
practical  result.  Past  insults  had  to  be  avenged,  and,  besides,  there 
were  other  grievances  than  the  Orders  in  Council  for  which  no 

c  "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.  i.  p.  353. 

7  See  his  message,  Richardson,  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents," 
vol.  i.  p.  505. 

8  Von  Hoist,  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  232; 
also  "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.  i.  p.  354. 


WAR     OF     1812  419 

1812 

redress  was  promised.  The  news  of  the  revocation  of  the  Orders, 
therefore,  had  no  effect  upon  the  course  of  events  in  America. 

Now  that  the  United  States  had  at  last  decided  upon  war,  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  consider  her  resources,  as  well  as  those  of 
her  adversary,  with  a  view  of  gaining  some  idea  of  their  compara- 
tive strength  for  the  contest  which  was  soon  to  begin.  At  the  out- 
break of  war  the  United  States  had  a  population  of  about  eight 
millions;  that  of  England  was  about  twenty  millions.  The  total 
annual  revenue  of  the  United  States  was  less  than  ten  million  dol- 
lars; that  of  England  was  some  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions. 
The  war  cost  the  United  States  about  thirty  million  dollars  a 
year,  and  sums  aggregating  nearly  one  hundred  millions  were  bor- 
rowed during  its  continuance.  The  financial  system  had  been 
thrown  into  confusion  by  the  expiration  of  the  charter  of  the 
national  bank  in  1811,  and  the  refusal  of  the  Republicans  to  re- 
charter  it  on  account  of  their  old-time  prejudice  to  a  government 
bank.  Thus,  at  the  very  time  when  the  government  most  needed  an 
efficient  fiscal  agency  to  aid  in  conducting  its  vast  financial  concerns, 
it  was  deprived  of  this  great  element  of  strength.  In  point  of 
national  spirit  and  unity  the  United  States  was  also  at  a  dis- 
advantage. The  war  was  opposed  by  the  Federalists,  who  con- 
temptuously referred  to  it  as  "  Mr.  Madison's  war,"  and  who  gave 
the  government  hardly  a  lukewarm  support.9  Indeed,  their  con- 
duct at  times  was  not  far  from  treasonable,  and  we  know  that  Eng- 
land profited  greatly  by  our  failure  to  present  a  united  front  against 
her. 

As  to  the  military  strength  of  the  United  States,  the  weak- 
nesses were  most  glaring.  The  regular  army  was  composed  of 
less  than  seven  thousand  available  men,  the  organization  was 
markedly  inefficient  and  the  service  most  unpopular.  The  chief  offi- 
cers were  Revolutionary  veterans  who  had  outgrown  their  useful- 
ness, and  their  incompetency  led  to  several  disasters  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  war.  As  to  the  naval  strength  of  the  two  com- 
batants comparison  was  almost  impossible.  The  United  States  navy 
consisted  of  sixteen  seagoing  vessels,  of  which  the  United  States, 
the  Constitution  and  the  President,  all  forty-four  gun  frigates,  were 
the  largest.10     The  number  of  enlisted  men  was  less  than  6,ooo,  of 

9  For   a    discussion   of   Federalist   opposition   to    the   war,    see   Von   Hoist, 
"  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  244  et  seq. 
10  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  vi.  p.  362. 


420  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1812 

whom  1,500  were  marines.  The  British  navy  consisted  of  830 
ships,  manned  by  150,000  seamen,  who  were  well  equipped  by 
training  and  experience  in  the  long  war  in  which  England  had  been 
engaged.  From  almost  every  point  of  view,  then,  England  was  not 
only  better  equipped  for  the  contest,  but  was  incomparably  more 
powerful.  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  at  this  time 
England  was  engaged  in  a  life  and  death  struggle  with  Napoleon 
and  his  allies,  and  consequently  was  unable  to  devote  her  whole 
strength  to  the  task  of  overcoming  her  American  enemy.  The 
United  States  had  the  single  advantage  of  fighting  for  the  most 
part  on  the  defensive. 

II 

MILITARY  AND  NAVAL  OPERATIONS 

According  to  the  original  plan  of  operations,  the  war  was 
to  be  initiated  by  an  attack  upon  Canada  from  two  points,  Buffalo 
on  the  eastern  border,  and  Detroit  on  the  western.  From  the 
latter  point  the  veteran,  General  William  Hull,  crossed  the  border 
and  attacked  the  Canadians  with  a  pompous  proclamation  in  which 
he  threatened  them  with  extermination.  Laying  siege  to  Maiden, 
he  soon  found  his  communication  threatened,  retired  to  Detroit,  then 
a  town  of  800  inhabitants,  and  on  August  16,  181 2,  surrendered 
the  place  to  General  Brock  with  2,500  men  and  thirty-three  guns, 
without  firing  a  shot,  and  in  spite  of  the  eagerness  of  his  men 
to  fight,  and  notwithstanding  also  his  superior  force.  His  ex- 
planation was  that  he  feared  a  massacre  of  the  women  and  children 
at  the  hands  of  the  Indians,  of  whom  there  were  some  600  in  the 
British  army.  But  the  surrender  caused  universal  indignation,  the 
old  general  was  court-martialed  for  cowardice  and  was  sentenced  to 
be  shot,  but  was  pardoned  by  the  President  on  account  of  his  gal- 
lant services  in  the  Revolutionary  War.11 

Shortly  after  the  disgraceful  affair  at  Detroit,  Fort  Dearborn, 
occupying  the  present  site  of  Chicago,  was  destroyed  by  the  Indians 
and  the  garrison  massacred  to  a  man.  Mackinaw  had  already  fal- 
len. The  invasion  of  Canada  had  proved  a  failure,  Michigan  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  enemy  and  the  whole  Northwest  exposed  to  the 
danger  of  Indian  raids.     On  the  Niagara  frontier  the  operations  of 

11  Schouler,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  398. 


WAR     OF     1812 


421 


1812 

1812  were  equally  unsuccessful.  A  body  of  New  York  militia  un- 
der the  command  of  General  Van  Rensselaer  was  defeated  at 
Queenston,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  refusal  of  3,000  militiamen, 
for  constitutional  reasons,  to  cross  the  American  border  to  aid  their 
comrades,  notwithstanding  repeated  and  almost  pathetic  appeals 
of  General  Van  Rensselaer,  who,  crippled  and  wounded,  crossed 
the  river  and  personally  implored  the  militiamen  to  come  to  his  aid. 
Nine   hundred   American   prisoners   were   captured,   among   them 


Colonels  Winfield  Scott  and  John  E.  Wool ;  but  the  British  suffered 
an  irreparable  loss  in  the  death  of  the  young  and  gallant  Brock, 
who  was  killed  in  battle.12  Van  Rensselaer  resigned  in  disgust,  and 
was  succeeded  by  General  Alexander  Smythe,  who,  after  a  few 
feeble  movements,  marked  mainly  by  the  issue  of  several  belligerent 
proclamations,  gave  up  the  attack  on  Canada  and  was  cashiered  for 
his  failure.  In  the  region  of  Lake  Champlain  several  campaigns 
were  undertaken,  but  like  the  others  they  were  failures.  The  only 
American  success  was  the  defeat  of  a  British  force  at  Ogdensburg, 


12  Lossing,  "  War  of   1812,"  ch.   xix. ;   McMaster,  "  History  of  the  United 
States,"  vol.  iv.  p.  12. 


422  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1812 

New  York,  by  a  body  of  militia  under  the  command  of  Jacob 
Brown. 

It  was  the  navy,  the  arm  of  the  service  from  which  least  was  ex- 
pected, that  proved  to  be  the  salvation  of  the  Americans.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  contest  they  calculated  that  their  chief  resource, 
compared  with  which  Great  Britain's  strength  was  insignificant,  was 
in  their  power  to  raise  land  forces.  It  was  believed,  therefore,  that 
the  war  on  land  would  be  a  succession  of  American  victories,  and 
on  the  sea  a  series  of  American  failures.  But  in  this  respect  the 
course  of  events  proved  to  be  a  great  surprise.  From  the  very 
first,  when  the  operations  of  the  army  were  being  marked  by  a  series 
of  disasters,  the  little  squadron  from  which  scarcely  anything  was 
expected  brought  glory  and  honor  to  the  flag  by  a  succession  of 
unparalleled  victories  on  the  sea.  Two  months  after  the  declaration 
of  war,  and  three  days  after  the  surrender  of  Detroit,  Captain 
Hull,  a  nephew  of  General  Hull,  in  command  of  the  American 
frigate  Constitution,  carrying  forty-four  guns,  met  the  British 
frigate  Guerriere,  carrying  thirty-eight  guns,  commanded  by  Cap- 
tain Dacres.  After  a  gallant  fight,  lasting  but  thirty  minutes,  the 
Guerriere  was  captured  and  destroyed,  greatly  to  the  delight  of  the 
Americans,  for  this  vessel  was  especially  obnoxious  on  account  of 
its  conduct  in  the  impressment  of  American  seamen.  The  Consti- 
tution was  but  slightly  damaged,  and  sustained  a  loss  of  only 
fourteen  men.  The  effect  of  this  brilliant  victory  was  soon  felt; 
the  country  was  both  amazed  and  overjoyed,  for  British  naval 
supremacy  had  received  a  heavy  blow.13  Other  victories  soon  fol- 
lowed. On  October  18  the  American  sloop  Wasp,  with  a  loss  of  but 
ten  men.  captured  the  British  brig  Frolic  off  the  North  Carolina 
coast,  and  a  week  later  the  United  States,  commanded  by  Stephen 
Decatur,  took  the  Macedonian  after  a  hard  fight  of  more  than  an 
hour  and  with  only  thirteen  casualties.14  Toward  the  last  of  De- 
cember the  Constitution,  now  commanded  by  Captain  Bainbridge, 
again  distinguished  itself  by  destroying  the  Java  off  the  coast  of 
Brazil  and  killing  one-third  of  her  crew,  including  the  captain. 

During  the  six  months  since  the  war  had  begun  the  American 
navy  had  captured  three  British  frigates,  besides  several  smaller  ves- 
sels; had  captured  privateers  by  scores,  and  had  ravaged  severely 
British  commerce  on  the  high  seas.     The  powerful  British  navy  on 

13  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United   States,"  vol.  vi.   p.  375. 
"Lossinpr,  "History  of  the  War  of  1812."  p.  434. 


WAR     OF     1812  423 

1812-1813 

the  other  hand  had  succeeded  in  capturing  only  three  small  Ameri- 
can vessels.15  In  the  following  year,  1813,  other  notable  American 
naval  victories  were  added  to  the  list,  the  most  important  being  that 
of  the  battle  of  Lake  Erie.  It  was  highly  important  to  the  Ameri- 
can cause  that  this  body  of  water  should  be  under  American  control 
in  order  to  facilitate  land  operations  against  Canada.  To  bring  this 
to  pass  Commodore  Perry  had  hastily  built  a  rude  fleet  of  nine 
vessels,  carrying  fifty-five  guns,  from  such  materials  as  were  at 
hand,  and  went  forth  to  dispute  with  the  British  the  control  of  the 
lake.16  On  September  10  he  came  up  with  the  British  fleet  of 
six  vessels  under  command  of  Commodore  Barclay,  carrying  all 
told  sixty-five  guns.  A  fierce  and  well  contested  action  followed,  in 
the  course  of  which  Perry  was  exposed  directly  to  the  fire  of  the 
enemy  while  passing  from  the  sinking  Lawrence  to  the  Niagara, 
but  escaped  unhurt  and  finally  won  the  battle,  thus  securing  to  the 
Americans  the  undisputed  control  of  the  lake  and  making  possible 
the  recovery  of  Michigan.  The  tale  was  briefly  told  in  the  follow- 
ing dispatch  which  Perry  sent  to  General  Harrison :  "  We  have 
met  the  enemy  and  they  are  ours;  two  ships,  two  brigs,  one 
schooner,  and  one  sloop."  In  the  following  year,  September  11, 
1 8 14,  the  Americans  crowned  their  naval  exploits  by  a  victory  on 
Lake  Champlain.  won  by  Commodore  McDonough,  one  of  the 
ablest  of  all  American  naval  commanders.  The  whole  British  fleet 
on  the  lake,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  gunboats,  was  surrendered 
to  the  American  commander,  making  one  of  the  most  vital  victories 
in  its  results  that  the  Americans  gained  during  the  war.  As  a 
whole,  the  record  of  the  navy  was  one  of  which  the  nation  had  rea- 
son to  be  proud,  for  never  were  the  expectations  of  a  people  so 
greatly  surpassed.  The  Americans  were  fighting  the  most  re- 
nowned naval  power  in  the  world,  but  the  fighting  ability  of  the 
ships  and  the  superior  skill  of  the  American  gunners  carried  the 
day.  By  the  end  of  18 13  the  Americans  had  captured  twenty-six 
British  war  vessels  carrying  600  guns. 

There  were,  however,  several  engagements  in  which  the  Ameri- 
cans were  defeated,  the  most  notable  being  the  fight  between  the 
thirty-eight  gun  American  frigate  Chesapeake  and  the  British  ship 
Shannon,  off  Boston,  in  June,  1813.     The  Chesapeake  was  com- 

15  Henry  Adams,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  vi.  p.  386. 

16  For    an    interesting    account    of   the    building    of    Perry's    fleet    see    Mc- 
Master,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  pp.  31-34. 


424  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1813 

manded  by  Captain  Lawrence,  who  eagerly  sought  the  encounter, 
but  who  was  killed  in  the  course  of  the  short  and  bloody  fight 
which  followed.  His  dying  words,  "  Don't  give  up  the  ship,"  be- 
came the  watchword  of  the  Americans  and  it  was  an  inspiration  on 
the  march  and  in  the  camp.  The  capture  of  the  Argus  by  the 
British  vessel  Pelican,  in  the  English  Channel  in  August,  1813,  and 
the  destruction  of  the  Essex  off  the  west  coast  of  South  America  in 
December,  18 14,  were  other  American  naval  disasters  of  note. 

The  achievements  of  the  navy  were  supplemented  by  the  ex- 
ploits of  the  privateers.  Responding  to  the  call  for  a  privateering 
force,  many  persons  fitted  out  small  but  fast  sailing  vessels,  and  with 
commissions  of  marque  and  reprisal  scoured  the  seas  in  pursuit 
of  English  merchant  vessels.  From  October,  181 2,  to  May,  1813, 
they  made  prizes  of  500  British  merchantmen,  one  alone,  the  True- 
blooded  Yankee,  capturing  twenty-seven  vessels  in  little  over  a 
month.  Another  captured  twenty  prizes  in  thirty  days.  In  two 
years  and  a  half  American  privateers  took  over  fourteen  hundred 
prizes,  valued  at  many  million  dollars,  thus  inflicting  incalculable 
damage  upon  English  commerce,  and  increasing  enormously  the 
rates  of  marine  insurance.  But  American  foreign  trade  was  prac- 
tically destroyed,  while  the  coast  traffic  was  seriously  interrupted 
by  the  blockade  maintained  by  British  cruisers.17 

In  the  land  operations  of  181 3  there  was  some  improvement 
over  those  of  1812;  and  the  army  came  to  be  better  organized, 
younger  and  abler  officers  being  put  in  command.  Among  these 
younger  commanders  were  William  Henry  Harrison,  Winfield  Scott 
and  Jacob  Brown.  The  year,  however,  opened  in  discouragement. 
In  January  an  American  detachment  of  about  1.000  Kentucky 
troops,  commanded  by  General  James  Winchester,  was  defeated  at 
Frenchtown  on  the  River  Raisin,  in  Michigan,  by  an  equal  number 
of  British  and  Indians.  About  400  Americans  were  killed  or 
wounded,  while  the  rest  became  prisoners  of  war.  A  disgraceful 
feature  of  the  affair  was  the  conduct  of  the  British  general,  Proctor, 
in  allowing  the  Indians  to  inflict  horrible  atrocities  upon  their 
wounded  captives,  some  thirty  being  massacred  after  having  sur- 
rendered to  their  captors,  and  in  spite  of  Proctor's  solemn  promise 
that  they  should  be  protected.  After  plundering  the  village  the 
half-drunken  savages  set  fire  to  the  dwellings,  and  burned  a  number 

17  For  the  achievements  of  the  navy  and  the  exploits  of  the  privateers  see 
McMaster,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  ch.  xxv. 


WAR     OF     1812  425 

1813-1814 

of  wounded  soldiers  occupying  them.  Others  who  attempted  to 
escape  were  thrown  back  into  the  flames  or  were  tomahawked  or 
scalped  by  their  fiendish  captors.18  Thenceforth,  "  Remember  the 
River  Raisin."  became  one  of  the  rallying-  cries  of  the  American 
soldiers. 

In  spite  of  this  check  upon  the  effort  to  recover  Michigan,  suc- 
cess soon  came.  In  May,  General  Harrison,  who  now  commanded 
in  the  West,  defeated  the  British  under  Proctor  at  the  battle  of 
Fort  Meigs  in  northern  Ohio,  and  his  further  advance  into  Canada 
was  now  made  possible  by  Perry's  victory  on  Lake  Erie  in  Septem- 
ber. Accordingly,  in  October,  Harrison  recaptured  Detroit,  drove 
the  British  out  of  Michigan,  pursued  their  retreating  army  into 
Canada,  defeated  it  at  the  battle  of  the  Thames,  and  recaptured  eight 
guns  which  Hull  had  surrendered  at  Detroit,  and  the  greater  part 
of  the  men.  Besides  shattering  the  British  army,  the  Americans 
had  the  satisfaction  of  ending  the  career  of  Tecumseh,  the  Indian 
chief  who  had  been  the  leading  instigator  of  the  Indians  to  hostilities 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  Northwest.  He  was  said  to  have 
been  killed  by  Colonel  Richard  Mentor  Johnson,  of  Kentucky,  a 
future  Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  This  victory  broke  the 
alliance  between  the  British  and  the  Indians,  completed  the  recovery 
of  Michigan,  and  freed  the  Northwest  from  the  further  presence  of 
the  enemy.19 

On  the  eastern  line  of  the  frontier  American  operations  were 
distinguished  by  the  advance  of  the  Americans  upon  York  (now 
Toronto)  in  April,  1813,  and  the  burning  of  part  of  the  town 
wantonly,  as  the  British  historians  have  charged.  This  incident 
was  followed  shortly  afterward  by  the  capture  of  Fort  George  on  the 
Niagara  River  by  General  Boyd.  The  next  year,  18 14,  was  gener- 
ally marked  by  defeat  and  disaster  to  the  American  arms.  With 
the  abdication  of  Napoleon  in  April,  English  resources  were  re- 
leased, and  twelve  thousand  veterans  were  dispatched  to  America  to 
prosecute  the  war  with  renewed  vigor. 

The  campaign  on  the  Niagara  frontier  was  renewed  under 
the  direction  of  General  Jacob  Brown,  an  able  commander  of  the 
New  York  militia.  Under  his  direction  Colonel  Winfield  Scott, 
with  some  1,300  men,  was  sent  to  engage  a  somewhat  larger  detach- 
ment of  British  at  Chippewa,  a  short  distance  from  Niagara  Falls, 

18  Schouler,    "  History   of   the   United    States,"   vol.    ii.    p.   424. 
19  Lossing,    "  History   of  the   War   of   1812,"   pp.    545-562. 


426  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1814 

on  the  Canadian  side.  After  a  sharp  battle,  July  5,  the  British  were 
repulsed  with  a  loss  twice  as  great  as  that  of  the  Americans.  On 
the  twenty-fifth  of  the  same  month  the  most  hotly  contested  battle 
of  the  war  was  fought  between  the  two  armies  at  Lundy's  Lane, 
within  sound  of  the  mighty  Falls.  The  American  army,  com- 
manded by  Colonel  Brown  and  Colonel  Scott,  consisted  of  about 
2,600  men;  that  of  the  British  of  about  3,000  regulars.  For  five 
hours  during  the  darkness  of  night  a  fierce  battle  raged,  each  side 
struggling  for  possession  of  a  small  hill,  which  was  held  first  by 
the  British  and  later  by  the  Americans.  Finally  toward  midnight 
the  firing  on  both  sides  ceased,  and  the  Americans  retired,  leaving 
their  heavy  artillery  in  possession  of  the  enemy.  The  total  Ameri- 
can loss  was  over  eight  hundred  men.  Brown  and  Scott  being 
among  the  wounded.  The  British  loss  was  about  the  same,  both 
of  their  commanders,  Drummond  and  Riall,  likewise  being  wounded. 
Both  sides  claimed  the  victory.  The  American  army  next  proceeded 
to  Fort  Erie,  where  it  was  attacked  on  August  15,  but  the  British 
were  repulsed  with  heavy  losses  and  were  compelled  to  withdraw. 
Meantime  an  attempt  to  invade  the  United  States  from  the 
East  was  in  progress.  The  coast  of  Maine  was  occupied  in  the 
summer  of  1814,  and  later  other  parts  of  the  sea  coast  were  harried 
somewhat  according  to  the  methods  frequently  employed  by  Gen- 
erals Sherman  and  Sheridan  in  the  Civil  War.  The  inhabitants 
were  even  compelled  to  take  oaths  of  allegiance  to  Great  Britain. 
The  attempt  to  invade  New  York  by  way  of  Lake  Champlain  was 
defeated  by  McDonough's  victory  at  Plattsburg,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made.  In  August  some  4,500  British  troops  under 
command  of  General  Ross  disembarked  in  Chesapeake  Bay,  and 
after  routing  the  Americans  at  Bladensburg,  a  few  miles  northeast 
of  Washington,  advanced  upon  the  capital  and  easily  took  it,  owing 
to  the  feeble  preparations  which  had  been  made  for  its  defense, 
and  the  lamentable  confusion  and  disorder  which  reigned  in  the 
War  Department.  It  was  a  shame  and  a  disgrace  that  the  capital 
of  the  Republic  should  have  been  captured  as  easily  as  the  most 
insignificant  village  in  the  land.  The  character  of  the  defense  made 
is  shown  by  an  order  said  to  have  been  given  by  General  Winder 
to  the  artillery  just  before  the  advance  of  the  British  :  "  When  you 
retreat,"  he  said,  "  do  so  by  the  Georgetown  road,"  and  they  did.20 

20  Henry  Adams,   "  History   of  the   United    States,"  vol.   xiii.,  ch.   v. ;   Mc- 
Master,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  pp.  143-144. 


WAR     OF     1818  427 

1814 

The  approach  of  the  British  caused  great  excitement  in  the  capital ; 
the  President  and  Cabinet  fled,  leaving  the  public  buildings  at  the 
mercy  of  the  invaders.21  A  number  of  these  including  the  capitol, 
which  contained  the  library  of  Congress,  the  presidential  mansion, 
the  Treasury,  the  navy  yard,  besides  numerous  private  buildings  — 
a  total  of  $2,000,000  worth  of  property  —  were  wantonly  destroyed 
by  the  British  in  retaliation,  it  was  said,  for  the  burning  by  the 
Americans  of  the  Parliament  House  at  York.  The  Americans, 
however,  asserted  that  the  destruction  of  the  public  buildings  at 
York  was  done  by  private  soldiers  acting  without  authority,  while 
the  destruction  of  Washington  was  the  act  of  the  British  com- 
manders themselves.22  This  piece  of  vandalism  has  been  con- 
demned by  American  historians  without  exception,  and  has  not  been 
defended  by  any  reputable  British  writer.  After  plundering  Alex- 
andria and  raiding  the  adjacent  country,  the  British  made  an  attack 
on  Baltimore ;  but  a  more  effective  resistance  was  offered  there,  and 
the  invaders  were  beaten  back.  General  Ross,  who  was  mainly 
responsible  for  the  burning  of  Washington,  and  three  hundred  other 
British  soldiers  were  killed  and  a  number  wounded  during  the 
attack.  After  an  unsuccessful  bombardment  of  Fort  McHenry  on 
an  arm  of  the  Chesapeake,  an  incident  of  which  was  the  writing 
of  "  The  Star  Spangled  Banner,"  by  Francis  S.  Key,  while  pacing 
the  deck  of  a  vessel,  the  British  fleet  sailed  away  and  gave  the 
Americans  no  further  trouble. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  year  18 14  the  British  prepared  to 
attack  New  Orleans,  the  town  of  chief  importance  in  the  Southwest, 
and  fifty  vessels  bearing  sixteen  thousand  Peninsula  veterans  under 
the  command  of  General  Pakenham,  brother-in-law  of  the  hero  of 
Waterloo,  were  sent  over  to  conduct  the  operations,  and  in  December 
the  fleet  made  the  attack.  Andrew  Jackson  of  Tennessee  (recently 
the  leader  of  an  expedition  against  the  Creek  Indians  of  Alabama, 
who,  in  August,  1813,  had  risen  against  the  white  settlers,  destroyed 
Fort  Mims  on  the  Alabama  River,  and  massacred  400  persons,  in- 
cluding many  women  and  children)  was  selected  to  take  charge 
of  the  defense  of  New  Orleans.  He  had  in  the  meantime  been 
promoted  to  the  rank  of  major  general  to  succeed  Harrison,  who 

21  At  the  approach  of  the  British,  Mrs.  Madison  carefully  cut  from  the  walls 
of  the  White  House  Stuart's  famous  portrait  of  Washington  and  carried  it  away 
to  a  place  of  safety. 

22  Lossing,    "  War    of    1812,"    p.    935. 


428  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1814-1815 

had  resigned.  In  his  own  vigorous  way  Jackson,  after  raising  a 
force  of  several  thousand  Southern  militiamen,  proceeded  first  to 
Spanish  West  Florida,  treating  it  as  though  it  was  British  territory, 
and  threatening  to  punish  the  Spanish  authorities  for  allowing  their 
ports  to  be  used  as  bases  of  operations  by  the  British.  After  ex- 
pelling the  British  from  Pensacola,  he  marched  to  New  Orleans  in 
December,  erected  defenses  below  the  city  with  cotton  bales  and 
other  such  articles  as  could  be  procured,  and  behind  these  awaited 
the  attack. 

The  British  approached  within  a  few  miles  of  the  city,  and 
after  two  unimportant  preliminary  battles  the  two  armies  met  on 
January  8  for  the  final  contest.  Jackson's  army  numbered  about 
5,500  men;  that  of  Pakenham  about  10,000.  The  battle  began 
about  daybreak  and  continued  furiously  for  two  hours ;  volley  after 
volley  was  poured  into  the  ranks  of  the  British  from  the  American 
artillery  and  musketry.  The  fire  of  the  Kentucky  and  Tennessee 
riflemen  proved  most  deadly,  the  enemy  being  mowed  down  by  the 
hundred.  Over  700  British  soldiers  were  left  dead  on  the  battle- 
field, among  the  number  being  General  Pakenham,  who,  after  hav- 
ing two  horses  shot  from  under  him  and  being  twice  wounded, 
was  finally  killed  by  a  Kentucky  rifleman.  The  number  of  British 
wounded  was  about  1,900  men;  the  American  loss  was  but  eight 
killed  and  thirteen  wounded.  The  American  troops  consisted 
chiefly  of  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  militia,  with  a  few  soldiers 
from  other  States,  but  rough  and  untrained  as  they  were,  well  led 
and  fighting  behind  entrenchments,  they  defeated  with  heavy  slaugh- 
ter the  veterans  of  the  Peninsula  campaigns.23  This  was  the  last 
and  greatest  battle  of  the  war,  but  it  was  entirely  unnecessary,  for 
a  treaty  of  peace  had  already  been  concluded  two  weeks  before, 
and  was  then  on  its  way  to  America.  Had  there  been  an  Atlantic 
cable  to  bring  the  news  this  last  effusion  of  blood  might  have  been 
spared ;  but  it  had  its  value  in  showing  how  Americans  could  fight 
when  properly  led,  and  in  redressing  the  miserable  humiliations  we 
had  endured  at  Washington  and  on  the  Canadian  frontier. 

Shortly  after  the  outbreak  of  hostilities  the  Emperor  of  Russia 
tendered  his  good  offices  to  both  powers  to  bring  about  peace,  and 
Madison  had  taken  advantage  of  the  offer  to  send  James  A.  Bayard 
and   Albert   Gallatin  to   St.   Petersburg  to  negotiate  a  treaty  of 

23  Lossing,   "  War  of  1812,"  pp.    1034-1050. 


WAR     OF     1812  429 

1815 

peace.  Great  Britain,  however,  refused  to  accept  the  proffered 
mediation  of  Russia,  and  the  peace  movement  came  to  an  end.24 
Later  on  in  the  war  the  British  Government  expressed  a  willingness 
to  negotiate  directly,  and  the  President  appointed  John  Quincy 
Adams,  Henry  Clay  and  Jonathan  Russell  to  serve  with  Bayard  and 
Gallatin  as  a  peace  commission.  In  August,  1814,  the  commission- 
ers, with  those  of  Great  Britain,  met  at  Ghent,  in  Belgium,  and  after 
a  long  and  weary  negotiation  concluded  a  treaty  on  December  24. 
Curiously  enough,  the  treaty  contained  no  provisions  relative  to 
neutral  rights,  blockades  or  the  impressment  of  American  seamen 
—  the  chief  questions  which  led  to  the  war.  The  British  encroach- 
ments of  this  character  had  been  abandoned,  and  the  British  com- 
missioners virtually  admitted  that  they  would  not  be  resumed,  by 
failure  to  insist  on  articles  recognizing  the  old  principles  for  which 
they  had  previously  contended.  The  American  doctrines  were  now 
tacitly  admitted.25  With  regard  to  the  territory  captured  it  was 
agreed  that  there  should  be  a  mutual  restitution  as  before  the  war. 
Over  the  question  of  the  fisheries  the  commissioners  themselves  dis- 
agreed somewhat.  The  British  contended  that  the  fishery  privi- 
leges granted  by  the  Treaty  of  1783  had  been  abrogated  by  the 
war,  and  they  did  not  now  propose  to  renew  the  privileges  gratui- 
tously. Clay  insisted  that  the  British  right  of  navigating  the 
Mississippi  River  had  also  been  forfeited.  To  him,  as  a  Western 
man,  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  seemed  of  far  more  impor- 
tance than  the  Eastern  fisheries.  With  Adams,  an  Eastern  man, 
the  opposite  view  prevailed,  and  he  insisted  to  the  last  that  the 
fishery  clauses  of  the  Treaty  of  1783  were  in  the  nature  of  a  recog- 
nition of  preexisting  rights  rather  than  a  grant  or  concession,  and 
therefore  belonged  to  that  class  of  agreements  which  remain  un- 
affected by  war.26  But  the  British  negotiators  refused  to  yield, 
and,  consequently,  no  mention  was  made  of  either  question  in  the 
treaty,  the  settlement  of  the  matter  being  left  to  future  negotiation. 
There  was  one  other  question  which  proved  to  be  vexatious.  That 
was  the  proposition  of  the  British  negotiators  to  create  a  large 
buffer  State  through  Ohio,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  for  the  Indians 
who  had  served  as  allies  of  the  British  during  the  war;  but  to  this 
the  Americans  presented  a  determined  opposition  and  the  question 

24McMaster,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  p.  250. 

25  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  246. 

26  J.    B.    Moore,    "  International    Arbitrations,"   vol.    i.    pp.    705-707. 


430  THE     UNITED      STATES 

1815 

was  abandoned.  Provision  was  made  for  the  appointment  of  a 
joint  commission  for  the  determination  of  a  dispute  which  had 
arisen  concerning  the  northeastern  boundary  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  two  powers  agreed  to  use  their  best  efforts  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  African  slave  trade. 

Ill 

OBSERVATIONS    ON    THE    WAR 

On  the  whole,  the  peace  was  an  honorable  and  satisfactory 
one  to  the  United  States,  considering-  that  it  was  concluded  before 
the  British  disaster  at  New  Orleans,  but  it  had  cost  the  country 
enormous  sacrifices.  Besides  the  expenditure  of  over  a  hundred 
million  dollars,  30,000  valuable  lives  had  been  sacrificed,  and  the 
country  had  suffered  great  loss  of  property  and  seen  its  commerce 
practically  destroyed.  The  export  trade  had  fallen  to  about  one- 
twentieth  of  its  former  volume;  some  1.400  American  vessels,  with 
over  20,000  seamen  had  been  captured  by  British  cruisers,  while 
the  unpopularity  of  the  war  had  created  disaffection  among  a  por- 
tion of  the  inhabitants.  With  a  few  exceptions  the  military 
achievements  were  not  highly  creditable  to  the  nation  nor  to  the 
government  whose  management  of  the  war  was  marked  by  a  series 
of  blunders.  Moreover,  the  naval  victories,  although  highly  cred- 
itable to  the  little  squadron  that  achieved  them,  had  no  real  strategic 
value.  The  capture  of  2,416  British  vessels,  including  56  war- 
ships, was  overbalanced  by  the  destruction  of  American  trade  and 
commerce.27 

Throughout  the  war  great  reliance  was  placed  on  the  militia, 
and  it  may  be  truly  said  that  this  branch  of  the  service  bore  the 
brunt  of  the  contest,  and  contributed  far  more  to  the  success  of 
the  war  than  did  the  regular  army.  From  the  beginning  of  the 
struggle,  however,  the  New  England  States,  on  account  of  their 
opposition  to  the  war,  had  refused  to  furnish  militia  at  the  call  of 
the  President.  The  governor  of  Connecticut  refused  to  permit  the 
militia  of  his  State  to  serve  beyond  its  borders,  and  the  legislature 
supported  him  in  his  rebellious  attitude.  The  Massachusetts  legis- 
lature characterized  the  war  as  a   "  wanton  sacrifice  of  our  best 

27 "  Statesman's   Manual,"   vol.   i.   p.   377.     The  victories   of  Perry   and   Mc- 
Donough  are  to  be  regarded  as  exceptions  to  this  statement. 


WAR     OF     1812  431 

1815 

interests,"  and  the  governor  declined  to  furnish  militia,  assigning 
as  a  reason  for  his  action  that  there  was  no  invasion,  and  that 
consequently  no  constitutional  obligation  rested  upon  him  to  call 
out  troops.  The  executives  of  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island  and 
Vermont  made  similar  responses,  the  governor  of  the  latter  State 
declaring  that  the  military  forces  of  the  State  must  be  reserved 
for  its  own  exclusive  defense  and  protection. 

All  this  did  not  interfere  with  the  volunteer  service,  and 
Massachusetts  even  furnished  its  quota,  and  bore  its  proportion  of 
the  expense.  Being  the  chief  seat  of  Federalism,  the  people  were 
inclined  to  sympathize  with  England  as  against  France,  and  would 
have  preferred  war  with  the  latter  power  instead  of  with  the  former. 
The  English  took  advantage  of  this  feeling  to  encourage  the 
disaffection  of  the  people,  and  probably  cherished  a  faint  hope  of 
inducing  them  to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  Thus  during  the 
early  stages  of  the  war  English  cruisers  were  instructed  not  to 
blockade  the  coasts  of  New  England  or  to  capture  vessels  owned 
in  New  England.  At  one  time  it  was  reported  that  English 
emissaries  were  at  work  in  this  section  seeking  to  encourage  dis- 
affection among  the  inhabitants,  and  events  soon  justified  the  re- 
port. At  a  Massachusetts  public  meeting  one  of  the  leading  Fed- 
eralist extremists,  Josiah  Quincy,  offered  a  resolution  declaring  that 
"  in  a  war  like  the  present,  waged  without  justifiable  cause,  and 
prosecuted  in  a  manner  which  indicates  that  conquest  and  ambition 
are  its  real  motives,  it  is  not  becoming  a  moral  and  religious  people 
to  express  any  approbation  of  military  or  naval  exploits  which  are 
not  immediately  connected  with  the  defense  of  our  sea  coast  and 
soil."     There  were  many  others  of  his  way  of  thinking. 

The  legislature  of  Massachusetts  took  the  initiative  on  October 
1 6,  1 8 14,  in  voting  to  raise  a  million  dollars  with  which  to  main- 
tain a  State  army,  and  at  the  same  time  issued  a  call  to  the  other 
New  England  States  to  appoint  delegates  to  meet  in  convention 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  such  action  as  the  situation  seemed 
to  demand.  On  December  1 5  the  convention  met  at  Hartford,  and 
began  its  deliberations  behind  closed  doors,  with  George  Cabot  as 
president,  and  Theodore  Dwight  as  secretary.  It  was  made  up  of 
twenty-six  delegates  from  Massachusetts,  Connecticut.  Rhode 
Island.  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont,  the  representatives  from  the 
two  latter  States  being  chosen  by  unofficial  bodies.28     The  general 

-8  Von  Hoist,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  26,^. 


432  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1815 

belief  was  that  the  secession  of  the  New  England  States  would 
be  recommended,  and  the  subject  may  have  been  discussed  by  some 
of  the  more  extreme  delegates,  but  it  apparently  did  not  meet  with 
the  favor  of  the  majority.     The  President  sent  Colonel  Jessup,  an 
officer  of  the  army,  to  watch  the  proceedings  of  the  convention,  as 
well  as  an  outsider  could,  and  make  daily  reports  to  him;  but 
there  seems  to  have  been  nothing  to  report,  and  the  convention 
attracted  little  attention,  not  even  enough,  declared  Jefferson,  to 
make  a  subject  of  conversation  either  public   or  private.29     An 
official  report  of  the  proceedings  was  published  as  a  means  of  vindi- 
cating the  convention  from  the  charge  of  plotting  to  break  up  the 
Union,  and  from  this  it  appears  that  only  moderate  measures  were 
discussed,  although  there  is  evidence  of  great  want  of  patriotism 
among  the  members.     The  conduct  of  the  war  was  severely  criti- 
cised, the  Federal  authorities  were  accused  of  violating  the  Consti- 
tution, and  in  language  similar  to  that  of  the  Kentucky  and  Vir- 
ginia Resolutions,  the  convention  declared  that  "  in  cases  of  de- 
liberate, dangerous  and  palpable  infractions  of  the  Constitution  af- 
fecting the  sovereignty  of  a  State  and  liberties  of  the  people,  it  is 
not  only  the  right,  but  the  duty,  of  such  a  State  to  interpose  its 
authority  for  their  protection."  and  that  "  States  which  have  no 
common  umpire  must  be  their  own  judges  and  execute  their  own 
decisions."     The  President  could,  of  course,  take  no  exception  to 
this  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  since  it  was  almost  identical 
with  that  laid  down  by  him  in  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798. 
The  New  England  Federalists  in  18 14  were  standing  on  the  iden- 
tical ground  occupied  by  the  Republicans  in   1 798-1 799,  and  in 
each  case  the  right  of  the  States  was  asserted  as  against  those  of 
the  general  government,  and  for  similar  reasons.     Before  adjourn- 
ing the  convention  drew  up  a  list  of  proposed  air.endments  to  the 
Constitution,  the  general  purpose  of  which  was  to  protect  the  in- 
dividual  States   from  the  power  of  the  majority  of  States,  and 
which  requested  that  the  commonwealths  which  they  represented 
should  be  allowed   to  retain   the  customs  duties  collected   within 
their  ports.     The  resolutions  contained  an  implied  threat  of  seces- 
sion  should   this   request   not  be  complied  with,   but  just   as  the 
convention  broke  up  the  news  of  peace  arrived,  and  their  demands 
were  no  longer  insisted  upon."0     The  legislatures  of  but  two  States, 

-9  "  Jefferson's    Works."    vol.    vii.    p.    425. 

so  "For  a  rrIJ0(i  account  of  the  Hartford  Convention  see  Von  Hoist,  "  Consti- 


WAR     OF     1812  43S 

1815 

Connecticut  and  Massachusetts,  formally  approved  the  resolutions 
of  the  convention,  although  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  other 
New  England  States  would  have  followed  the  action  of  these  two 
had  the  war  continued. 

The  Hartford  Convention  was  the  deathblow  to  what  re- 
mained of  the  Federalist  party.  This  party  had  opposed  the  war 
trom  the  first,  and  at  a  time  when  the  government  was  straining 
every  nerve  to  repel  the  invasion  of  the  enemy  it  was  meeting  in 
secret  conclave  to  consider  the  expediency  of  seceding  from  the 
Union.  Their  factious  opposition  had  undoubtedly  embarrassed 
the  government  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  perhaps  had  delayed 
its  termination,  and  now  that  an  honorable  peace  had  been  con- 
cluded they  were  justly  held  up  to  execration.  After  1816  the 
Federalists  as  a  party  never  cast  another  vote.  Its  great  service 
to  the  nation  had  been  the  organization  of  the  government  upon 
broad  and  liberal  principles,  after  which  its  record  was  chiefly 
a  series  of  blunders  until  its  final  dissolution.  Although  disappear- 
ing as  a  party,  the  principles  for  which  it  stood,  namely,  adequate 
powers  for  the  general  government  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
national  dignity,  were  adopted  and  put  into  practice  by  the  Republi- 
cans. During  both  Jefferson's  and  Madison's  administrations  this 
theory  of  constitutional  interpretation  was  acted  upon  time  and 
again,  and  after  the  war  the  Federalists  gradually  came  into  the 
Republican  ranks,  so  that  when  Jefferson,  in  1801,  said  "we  are 
all  Republicans,  we  are  all  Federalists,"  he  expressed  what  had 
come  to  be  the  truth  in  18 16.  Bringing  this  to  pass  was  one  of  the 
chief  political  results  of  the  war  of  181 2. 

What  may  be  termed  one  of  the  military  results  of  the  war 
was  the  development  of  a  school  of  young  soldiers,  who  were 
afterwards  to  render  the  country  valuable  service  in  the  war  with 
Mexico.  Among  those  who  rose  to  leadership  were  Winfield  Scott, 
who  eventually  came  to  be  the  highest  officer  in  the  army;  William 
Henr}r  Harrison,  the  hero  of  Tippecanoe,  who,  in  1840,  became 
President  of  the  United  States ;  and  Andrew  Jackson,  who  rose  to 
the  Presidency  in  1828.  Among  the  leading  naval  heroes  of  the 
war  were  Decatur.  Perry,  Hull,  McDonough,  Bainbridge,  Stewart 
and  Blakely. 

tutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  pp.  250-269;  see  also  Lodge,  "Life  of 
George  Cabot,"  and  Dwight.  "  History  of  the  Hartford  Convention." 


Chapter  XIX 


THE    ERA   OF   GOOD    FEELING   AND    INDUSTRIAL 
DEVELOPMENT.     1 816-1824 

I 

THE   TARIFF  OF    l8l6  AND  THE   SECOND   UNITED  STATES   BANK 

IN  18 1 2  Madison  had  been  reelected  President,  receiving  128 
electoral  votes,  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  Vice  President,  receiving 
131.  The  Federalist  candidates  were  DeWitt  Clinton  of  New 
York,  and  Jared  Ingersoll  of  Pennsylvania.  Clinton  received  89 
electoral  votes,  which  was  the  largest  ever  cast  by  the  Federalist 
party  in  its  history.  Following  the  example  set  by  Washington 
and  Jefferson,  Madison  declined,  in  18 16,  to  be  a  candidate  for 
a  third  term,  and  in  accordance  with  what  had  now  come  to  be 
a  well-established  precedent,  his  Secretary  of  State,  James  Monroe, 
received  the  Republican  nomination  for  President,  with  ex-Gov- 
ernor Daniel  D.  Tompkins  of  New  York  for  Vice  President. 
Rufus  King  was  put  forward  as  the  candidate  of  the  Federalists, 
both  parties  nominating  their  candidates  through  the  congressional 
caucus.  Monroe  was  elected,  receiving  183  electoral  votes,  King 
obtaining  only  34  votes.  This  represented  the  expiring  effort  of 
the  Federalist  party;  before  the  next  election  it  had  dissolved,  and 
consequently  never  nominated  another  candidate.  The  Republi- 
cans, soon  to  divide  into  Democrats  and  National  Republicans,  or 
Whigs,  who  absorbed  the  Federalists,  had  an  overwhelming  ma- 
jority in  both  houses  of  Congress,  and  with  brief  intervals  the  more 
extreme  wing,  or  the  Democratic  element,  were  to  control  the 
government  until  the  Civil  War.  But  the  Supreme  Court  for  a 
good  many  years  longer,  under  the  domination  of  Marshall,  con- 
tinued, to  the  great  disgust  of  the  old  Republicans  and  new  Demo- 
crats, to  interpret  the  Constitution  according  to  the  purest  Federalist 
theories  of  construction. 

The  new  chief  magistrate  was  the  last  of  the  Revolutionary 
statesmen  to  reach  the  Presidency,  and  the  last  of  the  "  Virginia 

434 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  435 

1816 

dynasty,"  which,  with  the  exception  of  the  brief  period  from  1797 
to  1 80 1,  had  furnished  the  Republic  its  chief  magistrates  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  Monroe  had  served  in  the  Revolu- 
tion, rising-  to  the  rank  of  lieutenant  colonel,  was  a  member  of 
Congress  under  the  Confederation,  a  United  States  senator  under 
the  Constitution,  minister  to  France,  governor  of  Virginia,  one 
of  the  commissioners  who  purchased  Louisiana,  and  Secretary  of 
State  under  Madison.  He  lacked  the  brilliancy  of  Jefferson  and 
Madison,  but  was  industrious,  amiable,  generous  and  had  had 
long  experience  in  civil  affairs.  The  appointment  as  Secretary  of 
State  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  had  in  1807  gone  over  to  the 
Republicans,  was  virtually  the  selection  of  his  successor  to  the 
Presidency. 

With  the  accession  of  Monroe  to  the  Presidency  an  era  of 
peace  and  prosperity  set  in.  The  long  series  of  English  and 
French  outrages  upon  American  commerce  were  at  an  end,  and  the 
country  was  no  longer  divided  in  its  sympathies  between  England 
and  France.  Politics  had  ceased  to  be  colonial  and  had  become 
American.  There  was  only  one  party  and  that  was  an  American 
party.  Old  issues  had  disappeared ;  new  ones  had  arisen  to  take 
their  place,  and  new  leaders  were  at  hand  to  champion  them. 
The  War  of  1812  is  sometimes  called  the  Second  War  of  Independ- 
ence. As  the  Revolutionary  War  freed  us  from  political  depend- 
ence upon  England,  the  War  of  18 12  started  us  upon  the  road  to 
economic  and  industrial  independence,  and  freed  our  politics  from 
the  colonial  habit  of  basing  our  opinions  upon  what  happened  in 
Europe.  Until  the  latter  date  our  economic  development  was  im- 
peded by  European  restrictions  which  held  us  in  a  semi-colonial 
dependence.  The  country  was  now  free  to  devote  its  energies  to  in- 
ternal development,  and  the  chief  questions  which  came  to  occupy 
the  attention  of  Congress  related  to  tariff  protection,  the  con- 
struction of  public  improvements,  and  the  establishment  of  a  stable 
currency. 

Of  all  the  results  of  the  War  of  1812  none  were  more  im- 
portant than  the  improvement  of  the  distressing  economic  and 
industrial  conditions  which  it  had  brought  into  existence.  During 
the  period  of  the  embargo  and  the  war  capital  and  labor  were 
compelled  to  find  new  fields  of  employment.  Ship-building  and 
commerce  were  practically  at  a  standstill,  consequently  those  who 
[were  engaged  in  these  industries  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  now 


436  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816 

found  it  more  profitable,  in  fact  were  compelled,  to  turn  their  at- 
tention to  the  manufacturing  industries.  As  soon  as  the  policy  of 
commercial  restriction  began  in  earnest,  the  American  supply  of 
manufactured  articles  from  abroad  was  cut  off.  Hardware,  crock- 
ery, pottery,  cutlery,  tools,  clothing  and  many  other  articles  of 
necessity,  for  the  supply  of  which  we  had  depended  upon  Great 
Britain,  could  no  longer  be  had  from  this  source.  Home  pro- 
duction now  became  a  necessity,  and  manufacturing  enterprises, 
mills,  factories,  foundries,  rope  walks,  and  many  other  industries 
sprang  up  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  Premiums  were  offered 
for  the  encouragement  of  home  industries  of  various  kinds,  and 
in  many  large  cities  associations  were  formed  the  members  of  which 
were  pledged  to  wear  only  garments  of  domestic  manufacture.  In 
various  ways  the  State  legislatures  encouraged  the  movement,  and 
the  census  of  1810  showed  that  already  nearly  $200,000,000  worth 
of  goods  were  being  manufactured  annually  in  the  United  States. 
The  extraordinary  increase  of  cotton  manufactures  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  from  1808  to  181 1  the  number  of  spindles  increased  ten- 
fold, and  during  the  next  four  years,  ending  in  1 8 1 5 ,  they  increased 
over  six-fold.  Within  a  radius  of  thirty  miles  of  Providence  there 
were  one  hundred  and  forty  factories  spinning  each  year  29,000 
bales  of  cotton,  which  would  make  not  less  than  28,000,000  yards 
of  cloth  worth  $6,000,000.  *  The  iron  and  woolen  industries  also 
made  immense  gains.  So  long  as  the  war  lasted  and  British  manu- 
factured articles  were  excluded,  the  home  manufactures  had  a  mon- 
opoly, and  consequently  their  business  was  prosperous.  Both  with 
the  close  of  the  war  and  the  resumption  of  friendly  relations  with 
Great  Britain,  our  ports  were  thrown  open  to  the  commerce  of  the 
world,  and  a  flood  of  British  goods  poured  in  upon  the  American 
markets,  which  had  once  been  the  chief  outlet  of  British  trade. 
From  1814  to  181 6  the  imports  of  the  United  States  rose  from 
$12,000,000  to  $  1 47.000,000. 2  Great  Britain's  manufacturing  in- 
dustries were  old  and  well  established:  British  skilled  labor  was 
cheap  and  plentiful,  and  consequently  the  British  manufacturer 
could  supply  the  American  market  with  goods  at  lower  prices  than 
was  possible  for  the  American  manufacturer.  It  was  evident, 
therefore,  that  the  American  manufacturing  industries  which  had 
sprung  up  under  the  stimulus  which  the  war  had  afforded  could 

1  McMaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States."  vol.  iv.  p.  328. 

2  Stanwood,  "Tariff  Controversies  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,"  vol.  i.  p.  131. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  437 

1816 

not  successfully  encounter  British  competition,  and  must  sooner  or 
later  succumb,  unless  aided  by  a  protective  tariff.  As  fleet  after 
fleet  laden  with  British  goods  began  to  arrive  in  our  ports,  the 
manufacturers  turned  to  Congress  and  appealed  to  that  body  to 
come  to  their  rescue,  and  by  means  of  a  protective  tariff  preserve 
their  home  markets  from  the  effects  of  the  British  flood.  Millions 
of  dollars  had  been  invested  in  manufactures  and  this  would  be 
lost;  besides  the  owners  could  not  return  to  the  shipping  industry 
with  advantage,  since  the  general  peace  would  subject  their  vessels 
to  a  competition  which  they  could  not  meet.3 

The  demand  for  a  protective  tariff  raised  a  new  question 
of  politics  and  economics,  one  which  has  ever  since  afforded  an  issue 
upon  which  politicians  and  economists  have  divided.  The  preamble 
to  the  Tariff  Act  of  1789  declared  that  the  purpose  of  the  tariff 
was  for  the  "  encouragement  and  protection  of  manufactures," 
among  other  things,  but  as  the  average  rate  imposed  by  the  law 
did  not  exceed  five  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  it  afforded  little  or  no 
stimulus  to  the  establishment  of  new  industries.  It  was  in  fact 
a  revenue  tariff,  pure  and  simple,  but  nevertheless  each  party 
to  the  controversy  now  claimed  to  find  in  it  justification  of  its 
position.  This  first  Tariff  Act,  with  amendments,  continued  in 
force  until  the  outbreak  of  the  War  of  18 12,  when  the  rates 
were  doubled  to  meet  the  increased  demand  for  more  revenue,  and 
were  to  continue  in  force  until  a  year  after  the  close  of  the  war; 
but  the  destruction  of  our  foreign  trade  made  the  increase  of 
little  avail.  Congress  now  acted  favorably  upon  the  appeal  of  the 
manufacturers,  and  in  1816,  under  Southern  leadership,  passed  a 
new  Tariff  Act  which  was  really  the  first  in  which  the  principle 
of  protection  to  home  industries  was  a  prominent  feature.  It  im- 
posed a  duty  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  cotton  and  woolen  goods 
until  18 19,  when  the  rate  was  to  be  reduced  to  twenty  per  cent. 
A  duty  of  thirty-five  per  cent.,  meant  to  be  prohibitory,  was  im- 
posed on  articles  of  which  a  full  supply  could  be  made  at  home,  a 
duty  of  twenty  per  cent,  on  those  which  could  not  be,  and  a  tariff 
for  revenue  on  a  class  of  articles  consumed  in  large  quantities 
and  almost  entirely  made  abroad.  The  average  rate  under  this 
Tariff  Act  was  twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem.*     There  was  also 

8  Read  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv. 
eh.  xxxi. 

4  For  the  constitutional  aspect  of  the  tariff  question  see  Stanwood,  "  Tariff 
Controversies   in   the  Nineteenth   Century,"   vol.   i.   ch.   ix, 


438  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1819 

a  schedule  of  over  a  hundred  articles  on  which  a  separate  and 
specific  duty  was  imposed;  there  was  in  addition  a  free  list,  a  dis- 
criminating duty  on  goods  brought  in  vessels  not  owned  in  the 
United  States,  and  a  continuation  of  the  bounty  and  drawbacks  on 
pickled  fish  and  sugar  exported.5 

In  view  of  subsequent  tariff  history  it  is  worthy  of  note 
that  Webster,  speaking  for  New  England,  opposed  the  tariff,  be- 
lieving that  it  would  operate  as  a  hardship  upon  the  shipping 
industry  of  that  section  by  increasing  the  price  of  ship-building  ma- 
terial ;  Calhoun,  speaking  for  the  South,  advocated  the  policy  of 
protection  as  a  legitimate  means  of  encouraging  domestic  in- 
dustries, evidently  believing  that  the  establishment  of  cotton 
factories  would  provide  a  home  market  for  cotton,  which  was  fast 
becoming  the  chief  Southern  staple.  As  a  source  of  strategic 
strength  in  time  of  war  Calhoun  also  wished  to  see  the  United 
States  industrially  independent  of  Europe,  a  position  which  he 
thought  would  be  hastened  by  a  protective  tariff.6  In  the  course 
of  the  next  ten  years  we  shall  see  New  England  and  the  South 
reversing  their  positions  on  this  question.  During  that  period 
New  England  became  a  manufacturing  section,  while  the  South  dis- 
covered that  a  high  duty  on  coarse  goods  was  a  heavy  burden  upon 
the  slave-holders.  The  West,  where  flax  and  hemp  were  the  chief 
staple  articles  which  needed  protection  against  foreign  competition, 
also  favored  the  tariff,  Henry  Clay,  Speaker  of  the  House,  being 
the  chief  advocate  from  that  section.  But  the  rate  of  protection 
granted  did  not  satisfy  the  manufacturers;  agriculture  and  trade 
did  not  seem  to  return  to  their  normal  condition  as  before  the  war; 
the  currency  was  deranged,  and  finally,  as  a  result  of  these  and 
other  causes,  a  wide-spread  financial  panic,  resulting  in  the  failure 
of  many  banks  and  mercantile  establishments,  swept  over  the 
country  in  1819. 

Next  to  the  Tariff  Act  the  most  important  legislative  measure 
immediately  following  the  war  was  the  recharter  of  the  United 
States  Bank.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  charter  of  the  old 
bank  had  expired  in  181 1,  and  the  bill  introduced  the  same  year 
to  grant  it  a  new  lease  of  life  was  defeated  by  a  narrow  majority 
—  one  vote  in  the  House  and  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice  President 

5  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  p.  339. 

6  Burgess,  "The  Middle  Period,"  p.  11;  Von  Hoist,  "Constitutional  History 
of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  309. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  439 

1816-1819 

in  the  Senate.  The  excellent  currency  which  it  had  supplied  to 
the  country  was  now  withdrawn,  and  its  place  taken  by  a  currency 
issued  by  State  banks  which  quickly  sprang  into  existence  in  large 
numbers.  From  1811  to  1816  the  number  of  State  banking  in- 
stitutions increased  from  88  to  246.  The  flood  of  paper  which 
they  issued  could  not  be  redeemed  in  specie;  in  fact  there  was  no 
penalty  attached  to  a  refusal  to  redeem,  nor  any  real  check  to 
prevent  an  issue  of  bills  far  beyond  the  legal  limit.  Under  the 
stress  of  the  embargo  and  non-intercourse  policies,  the  currency 
soon  began  to  depreciate  in  value,  and  during  the  war  most  of  the 
banks  were  compelled  to  suspend  specie  payments,  causing  great 
derangement  to  business  and  general  economic  distress. 

In  this  situation  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Alexander 
Dallas,  proposed  to  establish  a  national  bank,  but  Congress  differed 
with  him  as  to  certain  details,  and  it  was  not  until  April,  181 6,  that 
the  bill  was  passed.  It  was  rather  curious  that  the  Federalists,  who 
had  always  stood  for  a  national  bank,  opposed  this  one,  chiefly  on 
the  ground  of  factional  opposition;  while  the  Republicans,  tra- 
ditional enemies  of  a  federal  bank,  supported  it  with  the  same  line 
of  argument  used  by  the  Federalists  in  1791.7  Never  did  two 
political  parties  shift  their  ground  more  completely  than  did  the 
Federalists  and  Republicans  in  181 6  on  the  bank  issue.  The  only 
explanation  which  the  Republicans  ever  gave  as  to  why  most  of 
them  opposed  the  bank  in  181 1,  and  favored  it  in  1816,  was  that  the 
times  had  changed,  and  the  conditions  which  confronted  the  country 
in  1816  were  quite  different  from  those  prevailing  in  181 1.  The 
new  bank  was  planned  on  the  same  lines  as  the  old  one,  except 
that  its  capital  stock  was  to  be  $35,000,000,  instead  of  $10,000,000, 
and  the  government  was  to  hold  $7,000,000  of  the  stock  and  appoint 
one-fifth  of  the  twenty-five  directors.  As  before,  the  main  bank 
was  to  be  established  at  Philadelphia,  with  branches  in  the  different 
States.  The  funds  of  the  government  were  to  be  deposited  in 
the  bank,  in  return  for  which  it  was  to  pay  a  bonus  of  $1,500,000, 
and  to  aid  the  government  in  the  negotiation  of  loans  and  the 
transaction  of  other  fiscal  business.  The  stock  was  quickly  sub- 
scribed ;  the  bank  at  once  went  into  operation,  and  for  twenty  years 
it  provided  a  sound  currency,  which  circulated  at  face  value 
throughout  the  country,  and  was  a  source  of  strength  to  the  govern- 

7  See  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  pp. 
310-311- 


440  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1817-1810 

ment.  One  of  its  first  acts  was  to  force  the  State  banks  to  re- 
sume specie  payments  in  February,  1817.8 

Shortly  after  the  establishment  of  this  second  Bank  of  the 
United  States  the  attempt  of  Maryland  to  impose  a  tax  upon  its 
circulation  led  to  one  of  the  most  notable  of  the  early  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court  concerning  the  powers  of  the  general  govern- 
ment under  the  Constitution.  This  decision  was  rendered  in  the 
case  of  McCulloch  vs.  Maryland,  in  181 9,  the  opinion  being  writ- 
ten by  Chief  Justice  Marshall.  In  upholding  the  constitutionality 
of  the  act  of  Congress,  Marshall  restated  in  clear  and  forcible  lan- 
guage the  doctrine  of  implied  powers  first  laid  down  by  Hamilton. 
"  A  national  bank."  he  said,  "  is  an  appropriate  means  for  carrying 
out  certain  of  the  expressed  powers  conferred  on  the  national 
government  by  the  Constitution.  Let  the  end  be  within  the  scope 
of  the  Constitution,  and  all  means  which  are  plainly  adapted  to 
that  end,  which  are  not  prohibited  but  consistent  with  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  are  constitutional.''  Few  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  have  been  more  often  quoted  than  this  one. 
It  settled  once  for  all  the  question  of  the  existence  of  implied  powers 
under  the  Constitution,  and  immensely  strengthened  the  authority 
and  influence  of  the  general  government.9 

Other  decisions  were  rendered  about  the  same  time,  notably 
those  of  Fletcher  vs.  Peck,  and  the  Dartmouth  College  case, 
which  placed  substantial  limitations  upon  the  power  of  the  States. 
In  the  former  case  the  court  held  that  the  clause  of  the  Constitution 
which  forbids  the  States  from  passing  laws  impairing  the  obliga- 
tions of  contracts  covered  land  grants  made  by  the  legislature  and 
protected  them  from  subsequent  abrogation  by  the  States.  In  the 
latter  case  it  was  held  that  a  charter  granted  to  an  educational 
institution  was  likewise  a  contract,  and  could  not  be  altered,  much 
less  repealed,  by  subsequent  act  of  the  State.  These  decisions  ma- 
terially limited  the  autonomy  of  the  States,  and  correspondingly 
exalted  the  power  of  the  general  government,  to  the  great  disgust 
of  the  States  rights  Republicans. 

s  For   a   comprehensive    history   of   the   hank,    see    Catterall,    "The    Second 
United  States  Bank." 

"See  Dillnn.   "The  Decisions   of  John   Marshall,"   pp.  252-209. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  441 

1816-1822 

II 

INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS ;  TERRITORIAL  EXPANSION  J  THE  MONROE 

DOCTRINE 

Next  to  the  protection  of  home  industries  and  the  creation  of 
a  national  bank  currency,  the  most  important  question  of  domestic 
interest  related  to  the  power  of  the  general  government  to  con- 
struct internal  improvements  or  aid  the  States  in  constructing  them. 
Up  to  1816  the  construction  of  roads,  canals,  harbors,  and  similar 
public  works  had  been  recognized  as  a  matter  of  State  enterprise, 
except  that  in  1806  the  general  government  had  undertaken  to 
build  the  Cumberland  Road,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  better 
transportation  facilities  between  the  East  and  the  West.  During 
Jefferson's  second  term  Secretary  Gallatin  had  made  an  elaborate 
report  recommending  the  construction  of  a  system  of  roads  and 
canals  throughout  the  country  at  an  estimated  cost  of  ten  mil- 
lion dollars,  but  with  the  outbreak  of  the  war  and  the  disappearance 
of  the  surplus  Gallatin's  scheme  was  abandoned. 

After  the  passage  of  the  second  bank  bill  in  1816,  the  ques- 
tion arose  as  to  the  disposal  of  the  bonus  of  one  and  a  half  millions 
which  the  bank  was  to  pay  to  the  United  States  for  its  charter. 
It  was  now  proposed  to  apply  the  fund  to  the  construction  of  roads 
and  canals,  and  to  the  improvement  of  river  navigation.  Calhoun, 
afterwards  distinguished  as  an  extreme  advocate  of  strict  construc- 
tion, favored  the  proposition  as  entirely  within  the  scope  of  the 
Constitution,  and  a  bill  embodying  its  substance  passed  both  houses 
of  Congress,  but  was  vetoed  by  President  Madison,  just  before  he 
went  out  of  office,  on  the  ground  that  the  power  to  engage  in  in- 
ternal improvements  was  not  conferred  by  the  Constitution  on  the 
general  government.10  Madison's  successor,  Monroe,  interpreted 
the  Constitution  along  similar  lines,  and  in  1822  vetoed  a  bill  mak- 
ing appropriations  for  the  repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road,11  at 
the  same  time  giving  notice  that  if  Congress  proposed  to  embark 
in  schemes  of  internal  improvement  the  Constitution  would  have 
to  be  amended.  But  in  the  following  year  Congress  began  the 
practice  of  making  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  harbors. 
This  was  followed  by  appropriations  for  preliminary  surveys,  and 

10  McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  p.  415. 

11  Von  Hoist.  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States/'  vol.  i.  p.  390. 


U2  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

in  1825  the  government  became  a  large  stockholder  in  the  Chesa- 
peake and  Delaware  Canal.  The  precedent  was  thus  established 
by  which  the  United  States  undertook  to  aid  in  the  construction  of 
works  deemed  to  be  of  national  interest.  This  aid  was  sometimes 
in  the  form  of  direct  appropriations  and  sometimes  in  the  form  of 
government  subscriptions  to  stock,  and  to  this  principle  the  nation 
may  be  said  to  have  become  finally  committed,  not,  however,  with- 
out strong  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  South. 

One  of  the  principal  reasons  for  the  growth  of  the  sentiment 
in  favor  of  internal  improvement  at  this  time  was  the  extraordinary 
development  of  the  West  and  Southwest.  The  immigration  to  this 
region  from  the  Eastern  States  had  been  steadily  and  continuous 
since  the  adoption  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  and  more  especially 
since  the  defeat  of  the  Northwestern  Indians  by  General  Wayne  in 
1794.  Between  1810  and  181 6  the  population  of  Ohio  had  in- 
creased from  200,000  to  about  400,000,  and  during  the  same  time 
the  population  of  Indiana  increased  three-fold.  In  fact  it  looked 
as  if  the  population  of  the  Eastern  States  would  be  drained  off  to 
people  the  West.  Most  of  the  immigrants  were  seeking  new  homes 
where  land  was  cheap  and  opportunities  plentiful.  The  Western 
rivers  swarmed  with  steamboats,  prosperous  settlements  sprang  up 
on  their  banks,  which  soon  grew  into  populous  towns,  while  the 
country  was  presently  covered  with  productive  farms.12 

In  181 6  Indiana  was  admitted  to  the  Union  as  a  companion  to 
Ohio,  then  a  flourishing  State  rapidly  filling  with  immigrants  from 
New  England.  In  the  next  year  the  importance  of  the  Southwest 
was  increased  by  the  admission  of  Mississippi,  to  be  followed  two 
years  later  by  Alabama.  In  1818  Illinois  was  admitted,  and  Mis- 
souri, lying  west  of  the  Mississippi,  was  already  making  application 
for  statehood.  There  were  now  eight  States  in  the  Mississippi 
Valley,  and  the  center  of  population,  which  in  1789  was  thirty  miles 
east  of  Baltimore,  had  moved  westward  considerably  over  one 
hundred  miles.  The  Republic  was  no  longer  a  fringe  of  Atlantic 
States,  but  an  empire  stretching  far  to  the  west,  big  with  possi- 
bilities and  capable  of  commanding  respect  from  the  outside  world. 

Closely  associated  with  the  expansion  of  the  Republic  by  the 
erection  of  new  States  was  the  acquisition  of  foreign  territory,  and 
the   rectification   of  the   national   boundaries   through   the   treaty- 

12  Read  McMaster,  "History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. "  vol.  iv.  ch. 
xxxiii. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  443 

1816-1824 

making  power.  The  joint  commission  provided  by  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent  for  the  adjustment  of  the  northeast  boundary  was  unable 
to  reach  an  agreement  on  several  points,  and  so  the  settlement  of 
the  dispute  was  left  to  future  negotiation.13  Meantime  a  dispute 
had  arisen  between  the  two  powers  with  regard  to  the  northeastern 
fisheries  and  the  northwest  boundary.  In  the  negotiations  at  Ghent 
the  British  commissioners  gave  notice  that  they  did  not  propose 
to  renew  gratuitously  the  fishery  privileges  contained  in  the  Treaty 
of  1783.  The  American  commissioners  expressed  surprise  at  this 
announcement,  for  they  regarded  these  provisions  of  the  treaty 
in  the  light,  not  of  a  grant,  but  as  the  recognition  of  a  preexisting 
right  which  was  not  suspended  or  otherwise  affected  by  the  War 
of  1812.  Failing  to  reach  an  agreement  on  this  point  the  commis- 
sioners decided  to  omit  the  matter  altogether  from  the  treaty,  and 
this  was  done.  The  British  Government,  however,  was  determined 
to  enforce  its  views  of  the  intent  of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  and  ac- 
cordingly, soon  after  the  close  of  the  War  of  181 2,  British  cruisers 
began  to  seize  American  fishing  vessels  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
Grand  Banks.  The  government  of  the  United  States  protested, 
and,  in  October,  18 18,  succeeded  in  concluding  a  convention  with 
Great  Britain  by  which  the  rights  of  American  fishermen  on  the 
coasts  of  Labrador  and  Newfoundland  were  specifically  set  forth, 
and  for  a  time  the  fishery  dispute  disappeared.14  With  regard  to 
the  boundary  dispute  the  convention  provided  that  the  boundary 
between  the  United  States  and  Canada  should  follow  the  forty-ninth 
parallel  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Rocky  Mountains. 
Beyond  the  Rockies  the  dispute  was  more  serious,  and  the  only 
agreement  that  could  be  reached  was  that  the  disputed  territory, 
commonly  known  as  the  Oregon  Country,  should  remain  open  to 
the  joint  occupation  of  both  powers  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  with 
the  privilege  for  either  party  to  terminate  the  joint  occupancy  upon 
giving  one  year's  notice. 

With  Spain  there  was  also  a  boundary  dispute  which  had  a 
favorable  termination.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Louisiana  was 
acquired  in  1803  with  uncertain  boundaries,  the  United  States  claim- 
ing that  the  cession  included  West  Florida,  a  claim  which  Spain 
denied  with  equal  steadfastness.     The  inhabitants  of  this  district 

13  Moore,  "  International  Arbitrations,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xiii. 

14  Moore,  "  International  Arbitrations,"  vol.  i.  ch.  xiii. ;  Henderson,  "  Ameri- 
can Diplomatic  Questions,"  ch.  v. 


444  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

finally  rose  in  rebellion  against  Spain  and  asked  to  be  annexed  to 
the  United  States,  which  was  done  by  proclamation  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  1810.  Spain  refused  to  recognize  the  rightfulness  of  this 
action  or  to  sell  the  disputed  territory.  She  also  refused  to  sell 
East  Florida,  which  was  eagerly  desired  by  the  United  States  to 
round  out  her  southern  boundary.  Finding  that  the  American 
Government  was  determined  to  hold  the  territory  seized,  and  realiz- 
ing that  East  Florida  alone  would  be  of  little  value,  Spain  finally 
consented  to  negotiate  for  the  sale  of  the  Floridas. 

East  Florida,  by  virtue  of  its  geographical  proximity  to  the 
United  States,  was  a  source  of  continual  trouble  to  the  government, 
since  the  territory  afforded  a  convenient  refuge  for  fugitive  slaves 
and  criminals,  besides  serving  as  a  base  for  smuggling  expeditions 
into  the  States.  In  1816  an  expedition  was  sent  to  Florida  to  break 
up  a  nest  of  desperadoes  who  had  taken  possession  of  an  abandoned 
British  fort  and  were  terrorizing  the  adjacent  country.  Finally, 
Colonel  Clinch  threw  a  red-hot  cannon  ball  into  the  fort  and  de- 
stroyed it,  together  with  270  persons.  In  1818  its  danger  was 
further  shown  by  the  Seminole  war.  The  United  States  had  found 
it  necessary  to  declare  war  upon  the  Seminole  Indians  who,  to- 
gether with  some  Spaniards  and  fugitive  slaves,  were  committing 
depredations  upon  American  settlements  in  Georgia,  and  when 
General  Jackson  undertook  to  punish  them  they  retreated  to  the 
Everglades  of  Florida  where  they  were  aided  by  the  Spanish  settlers 
of  St.  Mark's  and  Pensacola.  Jackson  thereupon  marched  into 
Florida,  without  orders,  seized  these  two  towns,  and  arbitrarily 
executed  two  British  subjects  —  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  —  whom 
he  charged  with  aiding  and  encouraging  the  Indians  in  their  re- 
bellious attitude.15 

Jackson's  invasion  of  Spanish  territory  aroused  indignation 
in  Spain,  and  came  near  embroiling  the  two  countries  in  war,  while 
his  summary  execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  stirred  English 
feeling  to  a  high  pitch.  His  conduct  was  a  subject  of  discussion  in 
the  Cabinet,  and  Calhoun,  who  was  then  Secretary  of  War,  pro- 
posed that  he  be  court-martialed,  but  nothing  was  done.  This 
episode,  however,  convinced  Spain  of  the  expediency  of  disposing 
of  Florida,  and  in  the  following  year  John  Ouincy  Adams  and  the 
Spanish  minister  signed  a  treaty  at  Washington,  concluded  after 

iri  Parton,    "Life   of  Jackson,"    vol.   ii.   pp.  436-488;   Sumner,   "Andrew  Jack- 
son," pp.  56-61. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     PEELING  445 

1816-1824 

long  and  tedious  negotiations,  by  which  Florida  was  ceded  to  the 
United  States  for  the  sum  of  $5,000,000,  the  entire  amount  of  which 
was  to  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  claims  of  American  citizens 
against  Spain  for  spoliations  committed  by  Spanish  cruisers  upon 
American  commerce.  Spain  abandoned  all  claim  to  lands  north 
and  east  of  a  line  beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the  Sabine  River,  ex- 
tending up  that  stream  to  the  32d  degree,  thence  north  to  the 
Red  River,  thence  along  that  river  to  the  100th  meridian,  thence 
due  north  to  the  Arkansas  River,  and  along  the  same  to  its  source, 
thence  to  the  43d  parallel  and  along  that  line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
Following  the  provision  of  the  Louisiana  treaty  it  was  stipulated 
that  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  should  be  admitted  to  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  American  citizens,  and  as  soon  as  con- 
sistent with  the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution  be  incorpo- 
rated into  Union.  By  this  treaty  the  United  States  gave  up  what- 
ever claim  it  had  to  Texas,  and  at  the  same  time  acquired  Spain's 
title  to  all  the  Oregon  country.  Some,  like  Henry  Clay,  believed 
the  claim  of  the  United  States  to  Texas  was  well  founded.  The 
acquisition  of  Florida  rounded  out  our  southern  boundary,  gave 
us  an  unbroken  line  from  the  Sabine  River  to  the  Atlantic,  and 
removed  a  source  of  danger  to  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Republic. 
On  account  of  the  action  of  the  Spanish  Government  in  making 
several  large  grants  of  land  in  Florida  subsequent  to  the  conclusion 
of  the  treaty,  which  action  was  presently  discovered  by  the  authori- 
ties of  the  United  States,  it  was  nearly  two  years  before  the 
treaty  was  finally  ratified.  General  Jackson  was  appointed  the 
first  governor  of  the  new  territory,  which  he  proceeded  to  rule  after 
the  manner  of  a  military  dictator.16 

About  the  time  that  Spain  was  parting  with  Florida  great 
events  were  happening  in  her  South  American  possessions.  One 
after  another  of  her  colonies,  including  Mexico,  had  risen  in  re- 
bellion against  the  attempt  of  the  restored  Bourbons  to  reimpose 
upon  them  the  colonial  absolutism  of  the  old  regime.  Between 
1 816  and  1822  a  revolutionary  government  had  been  established  in 
every  Spanish-American  colony,  from  the  United  States,  on  the 
north,  to  Cape  Horn,  on  the  south,  and  their  independence  of  Spain 
had  become  an  established  fact.  The  people  of  the  United  States 
naturally  felt  a  lively  sympathy  for  the  efforts  of  their  struggling 
neighbors  to  throw  off  the  despotic  yoke  of  Spain,  and  as  early 
1G  Parton,   "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.   ii.  ch.   xlv. 


446  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

as  1820  the  House  of  Representatives,  under  the  leadership  of  its 
speaker,  Henry  Clay,  had  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that  it  was 
expedient  to  provide  a  suitable  outfit  and  salary  for  such  ministers 
as  the  President  might  see  fit  to  appoint  to  those  South  American 
republics  which  had  achieved  their  independence  of  Spain.  But 
the  Florida  treaty  being  still  unratified,  the  President  did  not  deem 
it  expedient  to  act.  Clay,  however,  still  continued  his  championship 
of  the  revolted  colonies,  and  in  1822  his  efforts  were  rewarded  by 
the  action  of  Congress  in  recognizing,  so  far  as  congressional  action 
could  recognize,  their  independence,  and  appropriating  $100,000  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  sending  ministers  to  their  governments. 

Recognition  of  their  independence,  however,  by  the  United 
States  did  not  insure  the  new  republics  against  the  danger  of 
European  interference.  In  September,  181 5,  after  the  reestablish- 
ment  of  the  old  regime  throughout  Europe,  a  number  of  the  great 
powers  had  entered  into  an  agreement  known  as  the  "  Holy  Alli- 
ance," ostensibly  for  the  purpose  of  "  doing  each  other  reciprocal 
service,"  but  really  to  keep  down  the  spirit  of  revolution  within 
their  respective  dominions,  and  maintain  unimpaired  the  regime  of 
absolutism.17  In  Europe  the  Holy  Alliance  easily  carried  out  its 
ends  without  hindrance,  and  whenever  a  revolutionary  outbreak 
occurred  some  of  the  members  of  the  league,  as  the  agent  of  the 
allied  powers,  intervened  to  restore  the  old  order.  Thus  in  1823 
France  interposed  in  Spain  to  restore  the  Bourbon  sovereign,  Ferdi- 
nand, whom  the  people  had  risen  against  in  1820,  and  driven  out. 
In  like  fashion  liberal  uprisings  in  Naples  and  Piedmont  were  put 
down  by  Austria.18 

Having  restored  absolutism  everywhere  on  the  continent,  and 
having  nothing  further  to  fear  in  Europe  for  the  present,  the  allies 
began  to  consider  the  possibility  of  restoring  to  Spain  her  revolted 
colonies  in  South  America.  France  was  willing  to  serve  as  the 
instrument  of  this  unworthy  undertaking,  with  the  expectation,  of 
course,  of  reimbursing  herself  with  a  generous  slice  of  South 
American  territory.  England  alone,  of  the  European  countries, 
was  opposed  to  intervention,  chiefly  because  a  large  and  lucrative 
trade  had  sprung  up  between  that  country  and  South  America 
since  the  overthrow  of  Spanish  dominion  in  that  region,  and  this 

17  See  text  of  the  treaty  of  the  Holy  Alliance  in  Snow,  "Topics  in  Amer- 
ican  Diplomacy."   pp.   243-245. 

18  Fyffe,  "History  of  Modem  Europe"   (pop.  ed.),  p.  502. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  447 

1816-1824 

was  in  danger  of  being  destroyed  should  the  revolted  colonies  be 
restored  to  Spain.  The  British  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Canning,  therefore  turned  to  the  United  States  minister,  Richard 
Rush,  and  proposed  that  the  two  powers  unite  in  a  joint  declaration 
against  the  threatened  intervention  of  the  Holy  Alliance.  Rush 
had  no  instructions,  although  he  took  the  liberty  of  saying  that  the 
United  States  would  regard  intervention  as  "  highly  unjust  and 
fruitful  of  disastrous  consequences,"  and  promised  to  join  in  the 
declaration  if  Great  Britain  would  first  recognize  the  independence 
of  the  revolted  colonies,  as  the  United  States  had  done.19  This 
Canning  refused  to  do,  and  the  declaration  was  never  made.20 

Meantime  the  position  which  the  United  States  should  assume 
with  regard  to  the  American  continent  was  complicated  by  the 
attitude  which  Russia  was  taking  in  the  Northwest.  In  1821  the 
Czar  had  issued  a  ukase  reserving  exclusively  to  Russian  subjects, 
all  trade,  commerce  and  fishing,  and  indeed  all  other  industries  on 
the  northwest  coast  as  far  south  as  the  fifty-first  parallel  of  latitude, 
part  of  which  region  was  claimed  by  the  United  States.  Foreigners 
were  forbidden  to  approach  within  one  hundred  miles  of  the  inter- 
dicted coasts,  and  it  was  believed  that  Russia  might  attempt  to 
extend  her  dominion  much  further  down  the  coast.  This  seemed 
to  the  President  to  be  an  encroachment  upon  American  rights,  and 
a  source  of  danger  to  the  United  States.  The  Secretary  of  State, 
John  Quincy  Adams,  protested  against  this  action,  and  told  the 
Russian  minister,  Baron  Tuyl,  that  the  United  States  would  contest 
the  claim  of  Russia  in  this  regard,  and  would  assume  the  position 
that  the  American  continents  were  no  longer  open  to  future  colo- 
nization by  European  nations  because  of  the  independent  position 
which  they  had  assumed  and  maintained.21  In  this  situation  Mon- 
roe turned  for  advice  to  the  two  venerable  ex-Presidents,  Madison 
and  Jefferson,  and  encouraged  by  them  in  the  stand  which  he  had 
already  taken,  announced  in  his  annual  message  of  December,  1823, 
the  principles  which  have  come  to  be  known  as  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine.22 

19  Tucker,  "  The  Monroe  Doctrine,"  p.  10. 

20  Foster,  "  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,"  p.  442. 

21  Morse,  "  Life  of  John  Quincy  Adams,"  p.  132. 

22  Jefferson  in  approving  the  proposed  declaration  said :  "  Our  first  and 
fundamental  maxim  should  be  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Eu- 
rope. Our  second  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-Atlantic 
affairs."    Both  he  and  Madison  advised  forcible  resistance  to  the  proposed  inter- 


448  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

The  message  contained  a  statement  of  three  principles  which 
collectively  make  up  the  so-called  "  doctrine."  Concerning  the 
proposed  intervention  of  the  allies  in  South  America,  the  President 
said :  "  We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor,  and  to  the  amicable  re- 
lations existing  between  the  United  States  and  those  powers,  to 
declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend 
their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to 
our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies 
of  any  European  power  we  have  not  interfered,  and  shall  not  inter- 
fere. But  with  the  governments  who  have  declared  their  independ- 
ence and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independence  we  have,  on  great 
consideration  and  just  principles,  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view 
any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them  or  in  any 
other  manner  controlling  their  destiny,  by  any  European  power, 
in  any  other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  dis- 
position toward  the  United  States."  With  regard  to  the  attitude 
of  the  United  States  toward  purely  European  affairs,  the  President 
said  that  it  had  always  been  our  policy  not  to  interfere  in  any  of 
the  internal  concerns  of  those  powers,  but  to  cultivate  friendly  re- 
lations with  them.  '  It  was  impossible,'  he  said,  '  that  the  Allied 
Powers  should  extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of  either 
continent  without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness ;  nor  could 
anyone  believe  that  "  our  Southern  brethren,"  if  left  to  themselves, 
would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.  It  was  equally  impossible, 
therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such  interposition  in  any  form 
with  indifference.'  Concerning  the  claims  of  Russia,  it  was  de- 
clared that  "  occasion  has  been  judged  proper  for  asserting,  as  a 
principle  in  which  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States 
are  involved,  that  the  American  Continents,  by  the  free  and  in- 
dependent condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization 
by  any  European  power."  1>:; 

The  bold  announcement  of  these  principles  accomplished  the 
purpose  for  which  it  had  been  made.  France  was  informed  by 
Great  Britain  that  intervention  by  the  allies  would  lead  the  British 
Government  to  recognize  the  independence  of  the  revolted  Spanish 
American  colonies.     The  proposed  intervention  of  the  allies  was, 

position  in  South  America.     See  Jefferson's  and  .Madison's  Works,  vols.  x.  and 
iii.   respectively,  pp.  2~~  and  339. 

-•;  Richardson,  "Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  210,218. 


**"  -XT  ^v 


O-"    <l~-<^>«.  £^i^iJ'S-t_     . 


EXPLANATION  OF  THE  DOCUMENT. 


TRANSCRIPT 

Au  Norn  de  la  tres  Sainte  et  indi- 
visible  Trinite. 

Leurs  Majestes  l'Empereur  de  Rus- 
sie,  l'Empereur  d'Autriehe  et  le  Roi 
de  Prusse,  par  suite  des  grands  evene- 
mens  qui  ont  signale  en  Europe  le 
eours  des  trois  dernieres  annees  et 
principalement  les  bienfaits  multiplies 
qu'il  a  la  Divine  Providence  de  repan- 
dre  sur  les  Etats  dont  les  Gouverneurs 
ont  place  (leur  confiance  et  leur  espoir 
en  Elle  seule,  ayant  acquis  la  marche 
a  adopter  par  les  Puissances  dans  leur 
rapports  mutuels  sur  les  verites  sub- 
limes que  Nous  enseigne  l'Eternelle 
Religion  du  Dieu  Sauveur.) 


Fait  triple  et  signe  a  Paris,  l'an  de 
jrace  1815  14/26  Septembre 

l.  s.     Francois  propria 
l.  s.     Frederic    Guillaume 
l.  s.     Alexandre. 


TRANSLATION 

In  the  name  of  the  Most  Holy  and 
Indivisible    Trinity. 

As  their  Majesties  the  Emperor  of 
Russia,  the  Emperor  of  Austria  and 
the  King  of  Prussia  consider  it  neces- 
sary, owing  to  the  momentous  events 
which  have  marked  the  path  of  the  last 
three  years,  but  mainly  owing  to  the 
many  blessings  which  it  has  pleased  a 
Divine  Providence  to  shower  upon  the 
states  whose  rulers  have  set  (their  con- 
fidence and  hope  upon  it  alone  and  who 
had  arrived  at  the  positive  conviction 
that  it  is  necessary  to  base  their  mutual 
relationship  upon  the  sublime  truths 
which  the  everlasting  religion  of  the 
Saviour  teaches.) 


Issued  in  triplicate  and  signed  at 
Paris  in  the  year  of  Grace  1815  14/26 
September 

l.  s.     Franz    with   his   own   hand 
L.  s.     Frederick  William 
l.  s.     Alexander. 


THE    COMMEXCEMEXT    AND    THE    EXP    OF    THE    TRATY     KNOWN    AS 
THE   "HOLY    ALLIANCE    COMPACT,"    DATED    SEPTEMBER    26.    18I3 

Which    provoked    the    publication    of    the    so-called    "  Monroe    Doctrine  " 

by    Secretary   John    Ouincy    Adams. 

Copied  from   the  original  in    the  Prussian   Secret  Service  State  Archives 

at  Berlin. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  449 

1816-1824 

therefore,  abandoned,  and  shortly  afterwards  the  dispute  with 
Russia  was  settled  by  a  treaty  which  fixed  the  parallel  of  fifty-four 
degrees,  forty  minutes,  as  the  southern  boundary  of  Russia,  and 
recognized  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  the  enjoyment  of  the 
fisheries  in  the  North  Pacific.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  the 
principles  enunciated  in  Monroe's  message  did  not  originate  with 
him  or  with  Adams,  who  was  the  real  author  of  the  memorable 
sentences  from  which  the  above  quotations  have  been  taken,  but 
may  be  traced  directly  to  Washington's  neutrality  proclamation,  of 
which  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  the  necessary  outcome  and  corol- 
lary.24 The  great  credit,  therefore,  belonging  to  Monroe  and 
Adams,  and  it  is  very  great  indeed,  was  the  restatement  in  vigorous 
language  of  these  original  principles  and  their  extension  and  appli- 
cation to  new  conditions,  when  the  occasion  was  offered. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  as  it  is 
called,  is  neither  international  nor  statute  law;  it  is  simply  a 
declaration  by  the  President  as  to  what  had  been  the  policy  of 
the  United  States,  and  what  should  continue  to  be  its  policy  con- 
cerning the  particular  question  raised.  But  this  policy  so  com- 
mended itself  to  the  people  as  a  wise  and  proper  course,  as  so 
absolutely  vital  to  the  existence  of  the  United  States,  that  it  has 
been  cherished  and  enforced  by  all  political  parties  and  by  all  subse- 
quent statesmen  of  the  Republic.  Many  times  in  our  history  occa- 
sions have  arisen  for  the  assertion  of  the  principles  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine,  and  in  each  instance  our  government  has  firmly  adhered 
to  this  traditional  policy,  which  commands  the  absolute  devotion  of 
the  American  people  and  which  the  world  is  now  compelled  to 
recognize.  Daniel  Webster,  in  a  speech  of  April  n,  1826,  in 
defense  of  the  Doctrine,  said :  "  I  look  upon  the  declaration  as  a 
part  of  its  [the  country's]  reputation,  and  for  one  I  intend  to  guard 
it;  it  is  a  bright  page  in  our  history.  I  will  neither  help  to  erase 
it  nor  tear  it  out;  nor  shall  it  be  by  any  act  of  mine  blurred  or 
blotted.  It  did  honor  to  the  sagacity  of  the  government,  and  I  will 
not  diminish  that  honor."  25 

24  See  Gilman,  "  Life  of  James  Monroe,"  appendix  ii. 

-5  "  Webster's  Works,"  vol.  iii.  p.  205.  For  recent  applications  of  Monroe's 
policy  see  Edgington,  "  The  Monroe  Doctrine  " ;  see  also  Henderson,  "  American 
Diplomatic  Questions,"  ch.  iv. 


450  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

III 

THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  AND  THE  TARIFF  OF  1 824. 

It  was  during-  Monroe's  peaceful  administration  also  that  the 
anti-slavery  agitation  for  the  first  time  assumed  threatening  propor- 
tions —  causing  an  alarm  which  rang  out  as  suddenly  as  a  firebell 
in  the  night,  to  use  Jefferson's  expression.  During  the  thirty  years 
which  had  elapsed  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery  had  been  gradually  extended  by  the  admission  of 
new  States  in  the  Southwest,  while  the  number  of  slaves  had  largely 
increased.  In  all  the  Northern  States  slavery  had  been  abolished, 
partly  because  the  severity  of  the  climate  and  the  character  of 
the  industries  rendered  the  employment  of  slave  labor  unprofitable ; 
partly,  no  doubt,  from  the  conviction  that  slavery  was  a  moral 
wrong.  In  the  South,  however,  where  the  warm,  moist  climate 
made  the  negro  grow  and  thrive,  where  the  character  of  the  labor 
was  such  that  the  white  man  was  at  a  disadvantage,  slavery  was 
profitable,  although  many  of  the  ablest  and  most  influential  South- 
ern men  were  convinced  of  the  moral,  and  even  of  the  economic 
evils  of  the  "  peculiar  institution,"  and  wished  to  see  it  abolished. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  slavery  was  in  a  fair  way 
of  ultimate  extinction,  when  an  event  occurred  which  was  destined 
to  increase  immensely  the  demand  for  slave  labor,  and  consequently 
to  perpetuate  the  existence  of  the  system  indefinitely.  This  was 
the  invention  of  the  cotton  gin  in  1793  by  Eli  Whitney,  a  native 
of  Massachusetts,  and  a  graduate  of  Yale  College.  By  means  of 
this  invention  a  thousand  pounds  of  cotton  could  be  ginned  in  a 
day,  whereas  previously  the  output  did  not  exceed  a  few  pounds. 
Just  at  this  time,  also,  the  manufacture  of  cotton  cloth  in  Europe 
was  being  greatly  stimulated  by  the  introduction  of  improved  ma- 
chinery, so  that  the  demand  for  raw  cotton  was  correspondingly 
increased.  With  the  cotton  gin  the  South  was  now  able  to  supply 
the  demand,  and  the  export  at  once  showed  that  the  cultivation  of 
the  cotton  plant  had  received  a  tremendous  stimulus.  In  1793  five 
hundred  thousand  pounds  were  exported,  in  1800  over  sixteen  mil- 
lion pounds  sent  to  Great  Britain  alone.20  During  the  same  period 
the  price  increased  very  largely,  and  the  price  of  slaves  increased 
proportionately  with  the  increase  in  the  price  of  cotton,  and  the 
20  Hammond,  "The  Cotton  Industry,"  p.  31. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING 


451 


1816-1824 


demand  exceeded  the  supply.  The  result  was  an  industrial  revo- 
lution for  the  South  and  an  enormous  increase  of  the  difficulties  of 
emancipation. 

Meantime  the  territory  in  which  slavery  was  lawful  was  being 
extended.  Already  before  Washington  had  retired  from  office 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky  had  been  admitted  to  the  Union  as  slave 
States.     In  1803  came  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  by  which  the 


Laiion  was  doubled  in  area,  and  in  all  this  territory  slavery  existed 
by  custom.27  The  rights  of  the  slaveholders  were  guaranteed  by 
a  provision  in  the  treaty  which  pledged  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  uphold  the  rights  of  property  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  ceded  territory.  But  this  obligation  was  to  France  rather  than 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana,  and  the  United  States  might  have 
abolished  slavery  within  the  Territory  without  violating  its  obliga- 
tion to  any  citizen  of  the  United  States.28  No  such  action,  how- 
ever, was  taken,  and  when  Louisiana  was  admitted  to  the  Union 

2T  Phillips,  "  Economic   Cost  of   Slaveholding,"  in  Political  Science   Quar- 
terly, vol.  xx.  p.  267. 

28  Burgess,   "  The   Middle    Period,"   ch.   hi. 


452  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

in  1 812  it  was  admitted  as  a  slave-holding  State.  The  slave-holding 
commonwealths  were  further  increased  by  the  admission  of 
Mississippi  to  the  Union  in  1817,  and  Alabama  in  1819,  and  the 
acquisition  of  Florida  in  the  latter  year  insured  the  addition  of 
another  slave  State  in  the  near  future.  As  regards  the  slavery  ques- 
tion, the  situation  was  as  follows:  Of  the  thirteen  original  States 
seven  had  abolished  slavery,  while  six  still  retained  it.  The  free 
States  had  been  increased  by  the  addition  of  four  others  —  Ver- 
mont. Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  The  slave  States  had  been  in- 
creased by  the  addition  of  five  others  —  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi  and  Alabama,  making  the  number  of  each 
equal,  eleven  slave  States  and  eleven  free  States.  The  balance  be- 
tween the  slave  and  free  States  had  been  preserved  by  the  alternate 
admission  of  Northern  and  Southern  States,  and  so  the  controversy 
was  thus  kept  down  until  now. 

A  strong  sentiment  against  slavery  had  been  rapidly  developing 
in  the  North,  however,  and  the  national  government  had  gone  to  the 
limit  of  its  powers  in  attacking  the  evil.  It  had  abolished  the 
foreign  slave  trade  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1808,  the  earliest 
date  that  the  Constitution  permitted,  and  in  1819  offenses  against 
this  act  were  declared  to  be  piracy,  and  consequently  punishable 
with  death.  Over  slavery  in  the  States,  however,  it  was  admitted 
by  all  that  the  Constitution  gave  the  national  government  no  pow- 
ers of  interference.  Before  any  restrictions  could  be  placed  upon 
it  the  Constitution  would  have  to  be  amended,  and  it  was  well 
known  that  an  amendment  could  not  be  secured  until  more  States 
hostile  to  slavery  could  be  created.  The  friends  of  freedom,  there- 
fore, bestirred  themselves  to  secure  the  admission  of  free  States. 

At  this  time  it  was  generally  admitted  by  Southern  statesmen, 
as  well  as  Northern,  that  Congress  had  plenary  powers  in  the  Terri- 
tories, and  could,  therefore,  prohibit  slavery  in  them.  By  this 
means  these  parts  of  the  country  might  be  settled  by  a  free  popula- 
tion, which  would  in  time  organize  States  from  which  slavery  would 
be  excluded,  and  when  a  sufficient  number  of  these  were  created  the 
Constitution  could  be  amended  so  as  to  empower  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  already  existed.  On  account 
of  the  extraordinary  majority  required  to  adopt  an  amendment,  it 
was  evident  that  this  would  be  a  slow  and  tedious  process,  all  the 
more  so  if  the  South  should  continue  to  insist  upon  the  maintenance 
of  the  equilibrium  by  the  alternate  admission   of  slave  and   free 


HENRY   CLAY 

(Born,    1777.     Died,    1S52) 

After  a  daguerreotype. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  453 

1816-1824 

States.  Moreover,  Congress  had  already  lost  an  opportunity  by 
admitting  the  southern  portion  of  the  vast  domain  acquired  from 
France  as  a  slave  State,  and  it  would,  therefore,  be  difficult  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  adjoining  portions  of  the  Territory. 

The  only  other  possible  means  which  the  Constitution  seemed 
to  afford  was  the  power  conferred  upon  Congress  to  admit  new 
States  to  the  Union  from  time  to  time.  According  to  the  language 
of  the  Constitution  this  power  is  both  general  and  discretionary, 
and  it  was  asserted  by  many  that  Congress  might,  in  admitting  a 
State,  impose  the  condition  upon  it  that  it  should  have  a  constitu- 
tion forbidding  slavery.  Congress  had,  in  fact,  imposed  conditions, 
and  the  opportunity  was  now  offered  for  testing  its  power  in  the 
case  of  slavery.  The  question  was  raised  by  the  application  in 
1818  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri  for  admission  to  the  Union  as  a 
State,  but  no  action  was  taken  upon  the  application  at  this  session. 
In  the  same  year  a  bill  was  brought  in  for  the  organization  of  a 
territorial  government  for  Arkansas  embracing  the  territory  lying 
between  Louisiana  and  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri.  The  ques- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  remaining  territory  of  Louisiana  was  now 
seriously  raised.  A  New  York  member  moved  that  slavery  be  pro- 
hibited in  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  and  the  resolution  was  lost 
only  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  speaker,  Henry  Clay.  In  the  next 
year  the  Territory  was  organized  with  no  mention  of  slavery. 

In  the  meantime  the  discussion  on  the  bill  to  admit  Missouri 
was  proceeding  apace.  On  February  13,  1819,  James  W.  Tall- 
madge  of  New  York,  proposed  an  amendment  to  the  effect  "  that 
the  further  introduction  of  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  be  pro- 
hibited, and  that  all  children  of  slaves  born  within  the  said  State 
after  the  admission  thereof  into  the  Union  shall  be  free  at  the 
age  of  twenty-five."  The  real  question  at  issue  was  one  of  con- 
stitutional law  rather  than  of  practical  expediency.  It  was  whether 
Congress  had  the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  impose  condi- 
tions upon  the  admission  of  new  States  which  were  not  imposed  by 
the  Constitution  on  the  original  States.  Those  who  defended  the 
right  of  Congress  in  the  premises  relied  chiefly  upon  the  language 
of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  relates  to  the  admission  of 
New  .States  to  the  Union.  They  pointed  out  that  it  did  not  require 
Congress  to  admit  new  States,  but  only  empozvered  it  to  do  so; 
Congress  could,  therefore,  refuse  to  admit  at  its  discretion ;  and  that 
if  it  could  admit  or  refuse  to  admit  it  could  admit  upon  such  con- 


454  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

ditions  as  it  might  choose  to  impose.  The  several  precedents  which 
Congress  had  created  in  this  respect  were  pointed  out  to  show  that 
the  question  was  not  a  new  one,  and  that  the  restrictionists  were 
occupying  old  ground.29 

A  strong  argument  was  also  made  upon  the  lines  of  morals 
and  public  policy.  To  the  first  line  of  argument  it  was  replied 
that  if  Congress  could  admit  new  States  upon  such  conditions  as 
it  might  choose  to  impose,  it  could  create  a  Union  of  unequal 
States  such  as  was  never  intended  by  the  fathers  of  the  Republic. 
Those  who  took  this  view  insisted  that  Congress  had  no  power 
to  create  new  States  —  but  only  to  admit  those  which  had  been 
created  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  Territory,  and  when  admitted 
they  were  on  an  equality  with  the  original  States  of  the  Union. 
Otherwise  Congress  could  strike  bargains  with  Territories  seeking 
admission,  and  confer  upon  them  the  status  of  statehood  in  return 
for  powers  surrendered  for  the  benefit  of  Congress.  Such  States 
would  come  into  the  Union  lamed  and  crippled  and  shorn  of  the 
powers  which  properly  belonged  to  them  under  the  Constitution. 
With  regard  to  the  morals  and  policy  of  slavery  extension,  they 
argued  that  the  withdrawal  of  a  portion  of  the  slaves  from  over- 
stocked regions  and  their  distribution  upon  new  lands  of  the  West 
would  result  in  an  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the  slaves. 
It  was,  in  short,  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  dilution  of  slavery. 

A  careful  weighing  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  shows 
that  while  the  advocates  of  slavery  extension  perhaps  had  an  ad- 
vantage from  the  standpoint  of  constitutional  law,  the  restrictionists 
probably  got  the  better  of  the  argument  as  regards  the  policy  and 
expediency  of  extending  slavery.  However  this  may  be,  the  House 
passed  the  Tallmadge  amendment  by  a  vote  of  eighty-seven  to 
seventy-six,  and  sent  it  to  the  Senate  for  concurrence.  But  the 
Senate  refused  to  accept  the  amendment  and  passed  the  original 
bill,  and  the  two  Houses  being  unable  to  reach  an  agreement  the 
session  closed  without  definite  action.  The  debate  on  the  Missouri 
bill  created  great  interest  and  excitement  throughout  the  country; 
during  the  recess  of  Congress  it  was  the  all-absorbing  question  of 
discussion,  and  when  the  new  Congress  assembled  in  December, 
1 8 19,  it  was  the  leading  measure  for  consideration.30     In  the  mean- 

20  As  to  the  practice  of  Congress  in  imposing  conditions  upon  newly  ad- 
mitted states  see  Dunning,  "  Essays  on  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction,"  pp.  304- 
352. 

30  Blaine.   "  Twenty   Years   of   Congress,"'    vol.    i.   p.    18. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  455 

1816-1824 

time  the  Missouri  controversy  was  complicated  by  the  application 
for  admission  to  the  Union  of  the  District  of  Maine,  which  had 
been  a  part  of  Massachusetts  since  1691.  Early  in  the  session  the 
House  passed  a  bill  to  admit  Maine,  but  when  it  came  before  the 
Senate  for  concurrence  that  body  coupled  with  it  the  bill  to  admit 
Missouri  without  the  Tallmadge  amendment  prohibiting-  slavery. 
The  bill  in  this  form  passed  the  Senate,  and  was  returned  to  the 
House,  which  refused  its  concurrence  thereto.  The  deadlock  was 
finally  broken  by  a  compromise  proposed  by  Senator  Thomas  of 
Illinois,  which  provided  that  Missouri  should  be  admitted  without 
any  restrictions  upon  slavery,  but  that  in  all  the  rest  of  the  Louisiana 
Territory  lying  north  of  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty 
minutes  slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited.  In  this  form  the 
bill  passed  the  Senate,  was  finally  accepted  by  the  House  with  the 
close  vote  of  ninety  to  eighty-seven,  and  became  law  by  the  signa- 
ture of  the  President,  March  3,  1820.  It  admitted  Maine  with  a 
constitution  forbidding*  slavery,  and  authorized  the  people  of  Mis- 
souri to  adopt  a  constitution  legalizing'  or  prohibiting  slavery,  as 
they  might  choose,  and  apply  for  admission  to  the  Union. 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress  the  Missouri  Constitution 
was  laid  before  that  body  for  approval,  but  unfortunately  it  con- 
tained a  provision  which  gave  rise  to  another  difficulty  and  for  a 
while  longer  delayed  the  admission  of  the  State.  This  provision 
excluded  free  negroes  from  entering  the  State,  a  restriction  be- 
lieved to  be  a  violation  of  the  constitutional  guarantee  that  the 
citizens  of  each  State  shall  enjoy  the  privileges  and  immunities  of 
citizens  of  the  several  States.  The  Northern  members  voted  almost 
solidly  against  admitting  Missouri  with  this  provision  in  her  con- 
stitution, but  again  the  difficulty  was  settled  by  compromise,  this 
time  through  the  intervention  of  Henry  Clay.  The  substance  of 
Clay's  compromise  was  that  Missouri  should  be  admitted  upon  the 
condition  that  its  legislature  should  solemnly  promise  that  no  in- 
terpretation should  ever  be  placed  on  the  clause  in  question  which 
should  in  any  way  impair  the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
With  this  understanding  the  State  was  admitted  to  the  Union,  thus 
ending  the  first  great  controversy  over  the  slavery  question  —  a 
controversy  which  for  the  excitement  and  sectional  feeling  it  aroused 
had  never  been  equaled  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  The 
contention  clearly  revealed  the  increasing  divergence  of  the  North 
and  the  South,  intensified  sectional  feeling,  and  merely  postponed 


456  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

to  a  later  day  the  settlement  of  the  real  issue  involved.  The  com- 
promise proved  to  be  only  a  truce  in  the  great  struggle  between 
slavery  and  freedom,  of  which  this  passage-at-arms  may  be  said 
to  have  been  the  opening  battle.  The  Missouri  Compromise  is 
sometimes  called  a  Southern  measure,  but  the  ultimate  advantage 
which  the  South  derived  from  it  was  inconsiderable  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  North.  The  South  gained  as  a  result  of  it  Missouri 
and  Arkansas,  while  in  the  end  the  North  gained  the  immense 
region  now  embracing  the  States  of  Kansas,  Nebraska,  Iowa,  the 
Dakotas  and  Montana,  and  parts  of  Colorado,  Wyoming  and 
Minnesota.  The  Southerners  were,  moreover,  made  to  understand 
that  the  welfare  of  slavery  could  be  best  secured  by  a  strict  inter- 
pretation of  the  Constitution  with  regard  to  the  powers  of  Congress, 
while  the  North,  on  the  other  hand,  was  taught  its  power  over 
slavery  through  a  liberal  interpretation.31  Thus  clearer  ideas  of 
constitutional  law  were  formed,  but  the  movement  in  the  South  in 
the  direction  of  gradual  emancipation  was  checked. 

The  last  important  measure  of  Monroe's  administration  was 
the  Tariff  Act  of  1824.  The  tariff  schedule  of  18 16  had  proved  a 
disappointment  in  many  respects  to  its  framers.  It  had  been  fol- 
lowed by  a  large  falling  off  of  imports,  a  contraction  of  the  cur- 
rency, a  decline  in  prices,  and  a  general  derangement  of  business, 
which  resulted  in  the  financial  crisis  of  1819.32  In  1820  an  effort 
to  revise  the  schedule  in  the  interest  of  higher  protection  was  de- 
feated only  by  a  single  vote  in  the  Senate.  A  great  change  of 
attitude  was  now  taking  place  with  regard  to  the  position  of  the 
several  sections  on  the  question  of  protection.  New  England  was 
fast  becoming  a  manufacturing  region,  while  the  South  was  be- 
ginning to  realize  that  its  dependence  upon  the  North  or  upon 
Europe  for  its  supply  of  manufactured  goods  was  likely  to  continue 
indefinitely,  and  a  protective  tariff  would  only  increase  the  prices 
of  these  articles.  The  Middle  States  had  always  been  in  favor  of 
protection,  while  the  West,  since  181 6  at  least,  had  clamored  for  it. 
The  Western  agriculturists  hoped  that  the  development  of  manu- 
facturing industries  in  the  East  would  afford  more  ready  and 
convenient  markets  for  their  produce.     President  Monroe's  annual 

31  For  an  excellent  constitutional  discussion  of  the  struggle  over  the  admis- 
sion of  Missouri  to  the  Union,  see  Burgess,  "  The  Middle  Period,"  ch.  iv. ;  see 
also  Schouler,  "History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iii.  ch.  x.  section  ii. ;  and 
McMaster,  "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iv.  ch.  xxxix. 

32  Taussig,   "Tariff   History   of  the   United    Stales,"  p.   69. 


ERA     OF     GOOD     FEELING  457 

1816-1824 

messages  of  1821,  1822  and  1823  contained  recommendations  for 
the  more  adequate  protection  of  manufactures  as  a  necessary  policy 
for  the  attainment  of  industrial  independence,  showing  that  down  to 
that  period  at  least  the  South  had  not  yet  abandoned  the  idea  of 
protection. 

In  pursuance  of  these  recommendations  the  House  Committee 
on  Manufactures  entered  upon  the  consideration  of  a  new  tariff  pro- 
ject. Heretofore  the  consideration  of  this  subject  had  devolved  upon 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  indicating  that  up  to  that  time  the 
revenue  feature  of  the  tariff  was  of  the  first  importance.  Its  refer- 
ence now  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  is  evidence  of  the 
change  of  sentiment  which  was  taking  place  with  regard  to  the  pur- 
pose of  tariff  legislation.  In  January,  1823,  Mr.  Tod,  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  reported  a  bill  largely  increas- 
ing the  duties  on  iron,  coarse  woolens  and  cotton  goods.  Being 
unable  to  secure  action  on  the  bill  at  this  session,  he  brought  in 
a  more  moderate  measure  at  the  next  session  (January,  1824). 
The  time  was  now  favorable  for  action,  as  a  presidential  election 
was  approaching  and  none  of  the  candidates  felt  like  committing 
themselves  against  the  principle  of  the  bill.  Henry  Clay,  Speaker 
of  the  House,  came  forward  as  the  great  champion  of  protection,  the 
substance  of  his  argument  being  that  a  protective  tariff  was  neces- 
sary to  secure  industrial  independence,  and  industrial  independence 
was  the  necessary  corollary  of  political  independence.  "  The  ob- 
ject of  the  bill,"  said  Clay,  "  is  thus  to  create  a  home  market  and 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  genuine  American  policy."  Webster, 
speaking  for  Massachusetts,  as  he  had  done  eight  years  before, 
opposed  the  bill ;  four  years  more  were  necessary  to  bring  him  over 
to  the  ranks  of  the  protectionists.  For  the  first  time  the  South 
seems  to  have  discovered  that  protection  was  inconsistent  with  the 
interests  of  slavery,  and  consequently  voted  almost  solidly  against 
the  bill.  But  the  votes  of  the  Western,  Middle  and  part  of  the 
Eastern  States  were  sufficient  to  pass  it  in  May,  1824.33  As  finally 
passed,  it  raised  the  duties  on  cotton  and  woolen  goods  from 
twenty-five  per  cent,  to  thirty-three  per  cent.,  while  increased  duties 
were  also  laid  on  iron,  lead,  wool,  hemp  and  cotton  bagging.34 
The  general  average  was  increased  from  twenty-five  per  cent,  to 

33  For  an  analysis  of  the  vote  on  the  bill,  see  Stairwood,  "  Tariff  Contro- 
versies in  the  Nineteenth  Century,-'  vol.   i.  p.  239.     • 

34  Taussig,  "Tariff  History/'  p.  75, 


458  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1816-1824 

thirty-seven  per  cent.  The  tariff  of  1824  was  the  first  and  most 
direct  fruit  of  the  early  protective  movement,  but  the  protection 
afforded  was  modest;  except  on  a  few  articles  it  was  little  more 
than  a  continuation  of  the  tariff  of  181 6.  The  bill  was,  neverthe- 
less, openly  denounced  in  South  Carolina  as  unconstitutional  and 
oppressive,  although  elsewhere  it  was  acquiesced  in  and  was  not 
regarded  as  sectional  legislation.  It  was  also  the  first  of  the  so- 
called  "  political  tariffs,"  its  passage  having  been  facilitated  largely 
by  the  aid  of  the  candidates  for  the  Presidency  in  the  approaching 
campaign. 


Chapter  XX 

RISE   OF   THE    DEMOCRATIC   PARTY.     1 824-1 828 

I 

THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CONTEST  OF  1 824 

AT  the  presidential  election  of  1820  James  Monroe  had  been 
reelected,  and  for  the  first  time  since  1796  there  had  been 
no  organized  opposition  to  the  Republican  candidate. 
Monroe  received  every  electoral  vote  except  that  of  the  aged  Wil- 
liam Plumer  of  New  Hampshire,  a  Federalist  senator  from  that 
State,  who  cast  his  vote  against  Monroe  because  he  was  determined 
that  Washington  alone  should  have  the  honor  of  a  unanimous 
choice  to  the  Presidency.1  The  Federalist  party,  as  an  organiza- 
tion, had  dissolved,  and  Federalists  no  longer  existed  except  in 
the  ranks  of  the  Republican  party  or  as  a  social  reminiscence.  The 
truth  is,  the  Federalists  had  not  so  much  disappeared  as  they  had 
become  absorbed  by  the  Republicans,  who  had  themselves  adopted 
Federalist  ways.  It  was  this  change  which  led  Josiah  Quincy  to 
ask :  "  Why  should  we  oppose  the  Republicans  when  they  have 
become  federalized  ?  "  Thus  it  was  the  Republican  party  —  the 
party  of  strict  construction  —  which  had  purchased  Louisiana,  es- 
tablished the  second  United  States  Bank,  and  indulged  in  other 
Federalist  luxuries.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  Federalists  — 
members  of  the  party  of  liberal  construction  —  for  partisan  reasons 
of  opposition,  abandoning  their  early  principles,  opposing  the 
United  States  Bank  and  supporting  Republican  measures,  as  well 
as  the  old  Republican  theory  of  constitutional  interpretation.2  It 
was  this  dissolution  of  the  old  parties,  or  what  would  perhaps  be 
more  accurate,  this  disappearance  of  party  spirit  during  Monroe's 
administration,  which  caused  the  period  to  be  called  the  "  Era  of 
good  feeling."  Several  events,  notably  the  controversy  over  the 
admission  of  Missouri  to  the  Union,  had  served  to  interrupt  sorae- 

1  Sumner,   "  Life   of   Andrew   Jackson,"  p.   73. 

2  See  Macy,  "  American  Political  Parties." 

459 


460  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824 

what  this  peaceful  era,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that  a  period  marked 
by  especial  party  violence  set  in  until  the  administration  of  Monroe's 
successor. 

After  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  law  of  1824  the  ground 
was  clear  for  a  new  presidential  election.  The  campaign  which 
ensued  was,  as  a  result  of  party  disintegration,  mainly  personal,  and 
therefore  both  petty  and  bitter.  Crawford  claimed  to  be  the  con- 
gressional caucus  candidate,  but  not  one  of  the  aspirants  was  any 
party's  nominee.  All  the  candidates  were  Republicans  with  vary- 
ing shades  of  belief  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  general 
government  on  one  hand  and  of  the  States  on  the  other.  Had  the 
precedent  of  choosing  the  Secretary  of  State  been  observed  as  it  had 
been  followed  for  several  terms,  John  Ouincy  Adams  would  have 
been  the  logical  candidate ;  but  there  had  grown  up  a  dissatisfaction 
at  this  semi-hereditary  practice,  so  that  it  is  doubtful  if  Adams's 
position  as  Secretary  of  State  was  of  advantage  to  him  so  far 
as  his  political  ambitions  were  concerned.  His  chief  distinction  was 
that  of  being  a  diplomat  and  statesman  of  long  experience  and  un- 
doubted ability. 

Two  other  members  of  Monroe's  Cabinet  were  also  candidates, 
namely,  William  H.  Crawford,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 
John  C.  Calhoun,  Secretary  of  War.  Crawford  was  a  citizen  of 
Georgia,  a  man  of  large  wealth  and  imposing  appearance,  with  the 
advantage  of  long  experience  as  United  States  Senator,  minister 
to  France,  Secretary  of  War  and  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  He 
was  a  shrewd  politician,  and  in  1820  had  secured  the  enactment  of 
a  law  limiting  the  tenure  of  many  civil  officers  to  four  years, 
ostensibly  to  improve  the  civil  service,  but  in  reality,  it  has  been 
generally  asserted,  to  secure  the  appointment  of  Treasury  officers 
known  to  be  in  sympathy  with  his  presidential  aspirations.  He 
had  also  the  advantage  —  a  doubtful  one,  it  must  be  said  —  of  being 
the  regular  caucus  nominee.  It  will  be  remembered  that  since  1800 
presidential  candidates  had  been  put  forward  by  a  caucus  of  the 
members  of  Congress  representing  their  respective  parties.  But 
there  had  grown  up  a  widespread  popular  objection  to  this  method 
of  nominating  candidates  for  the  highest  office  in  the  land  by  a  small 
clique  of  members  of  Congress,  and  consequently  the  caucus  had 
fallen  into  such  disfavor  that  at  the  meeting  which  nominated 
Crawford  scarcely  one-third  of  the  members  attended.  He  was 
therefore  the  last  caucus  nominee  for  the  Presidency;  other  nomi- 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  461 

1824 

nating  machinery  now  had  to  be  devised.  Calhoun  was  the  young- 
est candidate  in  point  of  years  —  he  was  but  forty-two  —  but  had 
already  passed  fourteen  years  in  the  public  service  as  member  of  the 
State  legislature,  member  of  Congress  and  Secretary  of  War.  He 
had  won  many  friends  by  his  liberal  views  of  public  policy,  and 
was  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  promising  statesmen  of  the  na- 
tional school  which  the  Republic  had  produced.  Before  the  cam- 
paign was  well  advanced,  however,  he  withdrew  with  the  assurance 
of  an  undisputed  election  to  the  Vice  Presidency. 

The  West  furnished  a  candidate  in  the  person  of  Henry  Clay 
of  Kentucky.  Clay  had  long  been  Speaker  of  the  National  House 
of  Representatives,  was  an  orator  of  real  eloquence,  a  political 
leader  of  engaging  manners  and  great  personal  charm,  and  conse- 
quently had  a  large  and  enthusiastic  following.  He  was  the  recog- 
nized champion  of  the  protective  tariff,  of  internal  improvements, 
and  of  the  cause  of  the  South  American  republics.  His  hobby  was 
Americanism,  and  he  longed  to  see  this  country  independent  of 
the  Old  World  in  industrial  as  well  as  political  matters.  Like 
Calhoun,  he  belonged  to  the  younger  national  school  of  American 
statesmen,  and  was  then  in  his  forty-seventh  year.  He  was  put 
forward  as  a  candidate  by  the  legislatures  of  five  States,  including 
his  own  State  of  Kentucky.3 

Lastly,  the  West  and  South  had  a  candidate  in  General  Andrew 
Jackson  of  Tennessee,  a  rough  and  able  Indian  fighter,  who  had 
won  distinction  in  the  Creek  Wrar,  and  particularly  by  his  victory 
over  the  British  at  New  Orleans.  Like  Adams,  he  was  in  his 
fifty-seventh  year,  having  been  born  before  the  Revolution.  By 
profession  he  was  a  lawyer,  had  served  a  short  time  in  both  houses 
of  Congress,  was  at  one  time  a  judge  of  the  Tennessee  Supreme 
Court,  and  was  the  first  governor  of  the  Florida  Territory.  In 
none  of  these  positions  had  he  won  special  distinction,  but  his 
service  was  marked  by  rugged  honesty,  patriotism  and  integrity. 
It  was  as  a  commander  of  militiamen  that  he  had  shown  unusual 
talent,  although  in  his  rough  way  he  was  inclined  to  insubordination 
and  was  charged  with  arbitrary  treatment  of  those  who  incurred  his 
enmity.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  War  of  1812  he  was  appointed 
major  general  of  the  Tennessee  militia,  and  after  inflicting  a  crush- 
ing defeat  upon  the  Creek  Indians  at  the  Horse  Shoe  Bend  in  18 14, 
he  was  rewarded  by  an  appointment  as  major  general  in  the  regular 

3  Schurz,   "Life   of  Henry   Clay,"  vol.   i.  p.   228. 


462  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824 

army  of  the  United  States  and  put  in  command  of  the  Southwest. 
In  this  capacity  he  defeated  the  British  at  New  Orleans  in  an  ex- 
tremely well  fought  action,  and  one  which  in  that  day  was  very 
naturally  regarded  as  a  great  victory. 

In  1818,  as  already  stated,  he  invaded  Florida  contrary  to  in- 
structions, and  Calhoun,  as  Secretary  of  War,  had  proposed  that  he 
he  court-martialed  for  disobedience  of  orders;  but  he  was  ably  de- 
fended by  the  Secretary  of  State,  John  Ouincy  Adams,  whom  Jack- 
son had  supposed  was  his  chief  enemy.  Not  until  years  afterwards 
did  Jackson  learn  of  this,  and  then  without  making  amends  to 
Adams  used  his  powerful  influence  with  success  to  destroy  Cal- 
houn's chances  for  the  Presidency.  Both  in  Florida  and  at  New 
Orleans  Jackson's  conduct  in  several  instances  was  arbitrary,  if  not 
lawless,  and  on  one  occasion  he  was  fined  $1,000  by  a  federal  judge 
for  contempt  of  court.4  His  actions  had  certainly  given  weight  to 
the  claim  of  his  enemies  that,  like  many  other  military  chieftains  in 
the  past,  he  was  a  dangerous  man  for  a  civil  magistracy.  However 
this  may  be.  from  the  standpoint  of  experience  and  training  he  was 
certainly  the  least  qualified  for  the  Presidency  in  1824.  But  mili- 
tary heroes  are  always  popular,  and  in  a  democracy,  where  political 
power  is  vested  in  the  masses,  they  make  formidable  candidates  for 
civil  office,  whether  trained  statesmen  or  not. 

Jackson  had  the  advantage,  also,  of  being  the  representative  of 
the  rising  democracy,  and  of  all  the  candidates  he  alone  came  "  pure, 
untrammeled  and  unpledged  from  the  people,"  as  the  legislature  of 
Pennsylvania  expressed  it.  Our  Republic  had  reached  that  stage  in 
its  progress  when  the  masses  were  beginning  to  chafe  and  grow 
impatient  at  the  restraints  of  government  administered  by  states- 
men of  the  old  school.  Up  to  this  time  the  rulers  of  the  country 
had  been  men  qualified  by  long  experience  and  training  for  public 
service.  The  masses  had  been  content  to  let  the  few  nominate  the 
officers  and  were  ready  to  submit  to  government  by  those  who 
belonged  to  the  upper  ranks  of  society,  respecting  always  the  differ- 
ence of  capacity  between  man  and  man.  But  now  this  was  all  on 
the  verge  of  change.  Tn  most  of  the  States  the  elective  franchise 
had  been  extended  to  the  people,  and  thus  they  had  become  a  factor 
with  which  the  politician  had  to  reckon.  These  new  electors  were 
coming  to  look  with  distrust  upon  rulers  who  were  highly  qualified 
by  long  experience  and  education ;  they  were  taught  by  demagogues 
■'  Sumner,    "  Life    of    Jackson,"    p     .}6. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  463 

1824 

to  fear  such  men  as  too  far  removed  from  the  people  to  be  in 
sympathy  with  them;  in  short,  high  qualifications  for  office  were 
coming  to  be  regarded  as  disqualifications  in  the  popular  estimation. 
The  masses  were  making  ready  to  insist  upon  a  full  participation  in 
political  power,  and  regarded  themselves  as  fully  competent  to 
govern. 

Jackson  was  in  thorough  sympathy  with  this  view,  which  can- 
not be  said  to  have  been  true  of  any  of  the  other  candidates. 
He  was  brought  forward  by  his  old  friend  and  neighbor,  Major 
William  B.  Lewis,  an  astute  political  manager,  the  "  father  of 
wire  pullers."  says  Sumner,  and  received  the  nomination  of  the 
Tennessee  Legislature,  and  of  two  conventions  in  Pennsylvania.5 
"  Hickory  Clubs  "  were  organized  in  many  communities,  and  va- 
rious public  and  private  bodies  passed  resolutions  endorsing  Jack- 
son, and  at  the  same  time  denouncing  the  caucus  and  the  "  Secre- 
tary dynasty  "  as  inconsistent  with  democratic  traditions.  During 
the  autumn  and  winter  of  1822  and  1823,  says  McMaster,  it  was 
not  possible  for  a  dozen  men  to  be  assembled  for  any  purpose 
without  somebody  making  a  canvass  of  Jackson's  strength.0 

Jackson's  remarkable  letter  to  Monroe  shortly  after  the  latter's 
election  to  the  Presidency,  advising  him  to  be  the  chief  executive  of 
the  whole  people,  and  to  "  exterminate  that  monster  called  party 
spirit  "  was  now  brought  out  and  published  for  the  first  time.  At 
this  juncture  also  he  wrote  a  letter  intended  for  the  latitude  of 
Pennsylvania,  which  sought  to  convey  the  impression  that  he  was 
a  moderate  protectionist  in  his  political  economy.  The  effect  of 
these  letters  was  to  strengthen  the  chances  of  Jackson  in  quarters 
where  his  following  was  small,  and  to  make  him  the  leading  candi- 
date. 

As  was  to  be  expected  in  a  contest  of  this  character,  where 
there  were  so  many  candidates,  no  one  received  a  majority  of  the 
electoral  votes,  although  Calhoun  was  elected  Vice  President  by  a 
substantial  majority.  The  result  showed  that  Jackson  led  with 
ninety-nine  votes;  Adams  came  next  with  eighty- four,  then  Craw- 
ford with  forty-one.  Clay  bringing  up  the  rear  with  thirty-seven. 
Jackson  had  also  received  a  plurality  of  the  popular  vote,  which 
indicated  that  he  was  the  choice  of  the  people;  but  under  the 
Constitution  there  was  no  election,  and  for  the  second  time  in  our 

R  See   Parton,  "Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.   p.   .?i     ct  seq. 

6 "  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States."   vol.  v.  p.   58. 


464  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824 

history  decision  devolved  upon  the  House  of  Representatives  vot- 
ing by  States. 

As  the  Constitution  provided  that  the  choice  in  such  cases 
should  be  made  from  the  three  highest  candidates  on  the  list,  Clay 
had  to  be  dropped  from  the  contest.  Had  his  name  come  before 
the  House  it  is  practically  certain  that  he  would  have  been  promptly 
chosen,  as  his  ascendency  over  that  body  was  well-nigh  complete; 
and  had  it  not  been  for  a  bit  of  double  dealing  in  New  York, 
Clay,  instead  of  Crawford,  would  have  been  third  on  the  list.  The 
friends  of  Adams  and  Clay  in  the  New  York  legislature  which  ap- 
pointed the  electors  (there  were  seven  States  in  which  presidential 
electors  were  chosen  in  this  way)  had  agreed  to  divide  the  electors 
among  their  favorites,  but  the  combination  did  not  hold  together, 
and  it  happened  that  four  Crawford  electors  were  chosen.7  Like- 
wise, in  Louisiana,  the  Clay  electors  had  been  defeated  by  a  trick 
and  Adams  electors  chosen  instead.  This  insured  Clay's  elimina- 
tion from  the  contest  before  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  he 
was  left  master  of  the  situation  with  power  to  decide  which  one  of 
his  three  rivals  should  be  given  the  prize.  It  was  well  known 
that  the  representatives  of  those  States  which  had  cast  their  electoral 
vote  for  Clay,  namely,  Kentucky,  Missouri  and  Ohio,  would  now 
vote  with  him  in  the  House,  and  that  many  others  would  also  fol- 
low his  lead.8  Henceforth  the  friends  of  the  three  candidates 
entered  upon  a  campaign  of  forming  "  alliances  "  and  "  pulling 
wires "  for  Clay's  support.  Each  candidate  claimed  that  there 
were  special  reasons  why  Clay  should  cast  his  vote  and  influence 
for  him.  The  friends  of  General  Jackson  asserted  that  as  he  was 
the  leading  candidate,  both  as  regards  the  electoral  vote  and  the 
popular  vote,  the  House  was  under  a  moral  obligation  to  choose 
him,  otherwise  the  plain  wishes  of  the  people  would  be  defeated. 

But  Clay  was  opposed  to  Jackson,  whom  he  had  repeatedly 
stigmatized  as  a  dangerous  military  chieftain,  saying  that  he  did 
not  regard  the  killing  of  two  thousand  British  soldiers  at  New 
Orleans  as  a  special  qualification  for  the  Presidency.  He  had  fre- 
quently denounced  Jackson's  arbitrary  conduct  in  the  army,  and 
it  was  therefore  natural  that  he  should  oppose  him  for  the  Presi- 
dency. Besides,  with  an  eye  single  to  his  own  interest,  he  was 
quick  to  see  that  the  election  of  a  Western  man  at  this  time  would 

7  McMaster,  "TTi?tory  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  v.  p.  73. 

8  Seluirz,  "Life  of  Henry  Clay."  vol.   i.  p.  238. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  465 

1824 

endanger  his  own  availability  four  years  hence,  as  the  country 
would  not  want  two  Western  Presidents  in  succession.  Crawford 
had  practically  been  put  out  of  the  race  by  a  stroke  of  paralysis 
which  had  so  impaired  his  physical  powers  that  it  was  not  believed 
that  he  would  live  until  the  fourth  of  March  next,  although  the 
efforts  of  his  friends  to  counteract  this  impression  were  ceaseless 
and  even  ingenious.  There  remained  only  Adams,  by  experience 
and  training  perhaps  the  best  qualified  man  in  the  country,  and 
his  views  of  public  policy  coincided  more  readily  with  those  of  Clay 
than  did  those  of  any  other  candidate.  Clay  announced  that  he 
had  "  interrogated  his  conscience  as  to  what  he  ought  to  do,  and 
that  faithful  guide  had  told  him  that  he  ought  to  vote  for  Adams." 
He  similarly  advised  his  friends  to  cast  their  votes;  and  Adams  was 
chosen  by  thirteen  States,  as  against  seven  for  Jackson  and  four  for 
Crawford. 

In  refusing  to  choose  the  highest  candidate  on  the  list  the 
House  did  what  was  perfectly  constitutional  both  in  spirit  and  in 
letter.  Had  it  been  the  view  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
that  the  highest  candidate  in  the  popular  count  was  entitled  to  be 
seated,  provision  for  election  by  the  House  would  never  have  been 
made,  and  a  mere  plurality  of  the  electoral  vote  would  have  been 
declared  sufficient.  But  the  friends  of  Jackson  asserted  at  once 
that  the  will  of  the  people  had  been  defeated  and  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution  violated,  and  intimations  were  even  made  that  Clay 
had  acted  from  improper  motives.  This  became  an  open  assertion 
shortly  afterward,  when  it  was  announced  that  Clay  had  been  ap- 
pointed Secretary  of  State.  The  cry  of  "  corrupt  bargain  "  was 
raised  —  a  "  coalition  between  Blifil  and  Black  George,"  a  com- 
bination unheard  of  until  now,  "  of  the  Puritan  and  the  blackleg  " 
was  John  Randolph's  pleasant  way  of  expressing  it.  A  member 
of  Congress  named  Kremer,  from  Pennsylvania,  asserted  in  the 
public  prints  that  a  "  corrupt  bargain  "  had  been  made  between 
Adams  and  Clay,  by  which  Clay  was  to  be  appointed  Secretary  of 
State  in  return  for  his  support  of  Adams.  As  the  Tennessee  legis- 
lature expressed  it,  Adams  wanted  the  office  of  President :  he  went 
into  the  combination  without  it  and  came  out  with  it ;  Mr.  Clay 
desired  that  of  Secretary  of  State :  he  went  into  the  combination 
without  it  and  came  back  with  it.9  Clay  at  once  demanded  an 
investigation  by  the  House,  but  Kremer  sneaked  out  of  it  by  re- 

9  Morse,    "  Life  of  J.   Q.    Adams/'  p.    183. 


466  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824-1828 

tracting.10  There  was  probably  no  truth  in  the  charge  of  cor- 
ruption, but  it  was  easy  to  persuade  the  new  democracy  to  believe 
it,  and  the  persistency  with  which  it  clung  to  Clay  illustrates  the 
tremendous  vitality  of  a  well-managed  political  lie.  The  whole 
affair,  says  Carl  Schurtz,  was  "  an  infamous  intrigue  against  the 
good  name  of  two  honorable  men.  designed  to  promote  the  political 
fortunes  of  a  third."  n  The  truth  is,  Clay's  position  was  such  that 
whatever  course  he  might  have  elected  to  follow  would  have  ex- 
posed him  to  censure. 

II 

THE    PANAMA    CONGRESS;    THE    CONTROVERSY    WITH    GEORGIA;    THE 

TARIFF  OF    1828 

The  election  was  hardly  over  before  Adams's  enemies  entered 
upon  a  policy  of  determined  opposition  to  the  administration.  The 
first  evidence  of  this  was  the  attempt  of  the  Senate  to  reject  his 
nomination  of  Clay  to  be  Secretary  of  State,  fifteen  of  the  forty-one 
senators  present  voting  against  confirmation,  and  among  the  fifteen 
was  Senator  Andrew  Jackson  of  Tennessee,  who  openly  asserted 
the  charge  of  "  bargain  and  corruption."  It  was  now  evident  that 
an  organized  opposition  to  the  Adams-Clay  administration  was  to 
be  prosecuted  by  the  followers  of  Calhoun,  Jackson  and  Crawford, 
although  there  was  no  essential  difference  of  principle  between  the 
views  of  Adams  and  those  of  his  opponents.12  Jackson,  "  the  peo- 
ple's choice,"  had  been  cheated  out  of  the  Presidency,  they  as- 
serted, by  a  dirty  collusion,  and  everything  possible  must  be  done 
to  make  the  new  administration  unpopular.  Its  policies  must  be 
opposed,  and  its  recommendations  must  be  ignored  without  regard 
to  merit  on  the  general  principle  that  it  was  not  the  rightful  ad- 
ministration, while  the  old  hero  must  be  constantly  kept  before  the 
people  as  the  victim  of  an  unjust  conspiracy,  and  be  elected  as  the 
successor  of  Adams  in  1828.  This  proved  an  effective  weapon 
with  which  to  destroy  Adams's  popularity  and  the  success  of  his 
administration.  "  Xo  President,"  says  Thomas  H.  Benton,  "  could 
have  commenced  his  administration  under  more  unfavorable  aus- 
pices or  with  less  expectations  of  a  popular  career."     Adams  felt 

10  Schurz,  "  Life  of  Henry  Clay,"  vol.  i.  p.  246. 

11  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  246. 

32  Morse,  "Life  of  John  Quincy  Adams,"  p.  189. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  467 

1824-1828 

keenly  the  charge  that  he  was  a  "  minority  President,"  and  he 
lamented  in  his  diary  that  he  had  been  elevated  to  the  Presidency 
"  not  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  pride :  not  by  the  unequivocal 
suffrages  of  a  majority  of  the  people;  but  with  perhaps  two-thirds 
of  the  whole  people  adverse  to  the  actual  result."  13 

It  cannot  be  denied,  however,  that  in  knowledge  and  expe- 
rience, Adams  was  one  of  the  best  equipped  men  for  the  chief 
magistracy  that  the  Republic  had  produced.  At  the  early  age  of 
twenty-seven  Washington  had  sent  him  as  minister  to  Portugal, 
and  later  his  father,  upon  the  earnest  advice  of  Washington,  ap- 
pointed him  minister  to  Prussia.  After  serving  a  term  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  and  having  quarreled  with  the  Federalist 
party,  to  which  he  belonged,  he  reentered  the  diplomatic  service  as 
minister  to  Russia.  He  was  one  of  the  commissioners  that  nego- 
tiated the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  and  later  served  as  minister  to  England. 
During  the  eight  years  of  Monroe's  administration  he  filled  with 
conspicuous  ability  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State.  He  was,  in  the 
full  sense  of  the  word,  a  statesman,  was  industrious,  conscientious, 
and  had  a  high  conception  of  the  dignity  of  the  presidential  office. 
He  belonged  to  the  national  wing  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
favored  a  liberal  policy  of  internal  improvements.  In  his  first  an- 
nual message  his  recommendations  under  this  head  were  so  ad- 
vanced as  to  quite  shock  even  some  of  his  confidential  advisers.  He 
urged  the  construction  of  roads,  bridges,  canals,  a  national  uni- 
versity, a  national  observatory,  a  naval  school,  the  improvement 
of  harbors,  a  strong  navy,  an  efficient  army,  and  the  construction 
of  suitable  coast  fortifications.14  His  recommendations,  however, 
were  ignored  and  the  appropriations  of  Congress  were  confined 
chiefly  to  the  construction  and  repair  of  roads  and  canals,  and  to 
subscription  of  stock  in  State  enterprises.  No  actual  advance  was 
made  upon  the  policy  of  Monroe's  administration;  in  fact,  there 
was  retrogression,  for  the  opposition  professed  to  fear  that  the 
administration  had  a  fixed  purpose  of  encroaching  upon  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  States,  and  their  leader,  Martin  Van  Buren,  went  so 
far  as  to  introduce  a  resolution  in  Congress  denying  the  power 
of  the  general  government  to  construct  roads  and  canals  within  the 
States. 

Another  matter  in  which  the  administration  took  a  special  in- 

13  Morse,  "J.   Q.   Adams,"  p.    177. 

14  Richardson,  "Messages  rind  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol,  ii.  p.  311. 


468  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824-1828 

terest  was  the  proposed  Congress  of  American  Republics  to  be  held 
at  Panama.  In  1824  General  Simon  Bolivar,  the  South  American 
patriot,  had  issued  an  invitation  to  the  several  Spanish-American 
governments  to  send  delegates  to  the  proposed  congress.  These 
delegates  were  to  be  empowered  to  discuss  various  questions  con- 
cerning American  affairs,  particularly  those  relating  to  liberal  com- 
mercial intercourse  and  advanced  principles  of  maritime  neutrality 
in  time  of  war.  In  the  spring  of  1825  the  invitation  was  extended 
to  the  United  States.  The  prospect  of  a  grand  confederation  of 
American  republics  under  the  hegemony  of  the  United  States  ex- 
cited the  imagination  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  who,  in  Congress, 
had  been  the  brilliant  defender  of  these  republics  against  the  despot- 
ism of  Europe.15  Nothing  seemed  to  be  more  in  harmony  with 
his  idea  of  an  "  American  system,"  and  after  demanding  and  re- 
ceiving definite  information  concerning  the  organization  and  pro- 
cedure of  the  congress  and  the  subjects  to  be  discussed,  he  persuaded 
the  President  to  accept  the  invitation,  with  the  understanding  that 
the  delegates  should  not  be  empowered  to  take  any  action  contrary 
to  the  traditional  policy  of  the  United  States  with  regard  to  neu- 
trality. Upon  the  meeting  of  Congress  the  President  sent  in  a 
message  saying  that  the  invitation  had  been  accepted,  and  that 
commissioners  would  soon  be  nominated  to  represent  the  United 
States  at  the  proposed  conference.  Members  of  both  Houses  pro- 
fessed to  feel  that  Congress  had  not  been  properly  treated,  and 
that  instead  of  informing  it  that  the  invitation  had  been  accepted, 
the  President  should  have  first  consulted  the  Senate  in  regard  to 
the  expediency  of  the  mission.  Vehement  attacks  were  made  upon 
Adams  by  members  of  both  Houses  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
exceeded  his  powers.  When  the  President,  therefore,  sent  in  the 
nomination  of  Anderson  and  Sergeant  as  the  delegates  to  the  con- 
gress, the  Senate  referred  the  nomination  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs  and  called  for  the  correspondence  relating  to  the 
subject.  The  committee  reported  against  the  nominations  on  the 
ground  that  participation  in  the  congress  would  draw  us  into  en- 
tangling relations  with  other  countries.  The  Senate  in  secret  ses- 
sion debated  the  report  for  about  a  month,  and  finally  on  March  14, 
1826,  confirmed  the  nominations  by  a  vote  of  twenty-four  to  nine- 
teen. The  necessary  funds  ($40,000)  were  voted  after  a  prolonged 
discussion  in  the  House,  but  it  was  too  late  for  the  delegates  to  reach 
JB  Schurz,  "Life  of  Henry  Clay,"  vol.  i.  p.  268. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  469 

1824-1828 

Panama  before  the  adjournment  of  the  congress,  and  the  whole 
scheme  ended  in  failure. 

It  is  commonly  asserted  that  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  delay, 
and  consequently  the  failure  of  the  Panama  mission,  was  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  Southern  members  on  account  of  their  objection  to 
taking  part  in  a  congress  of  States  which  had  abolished  slavery, 
and  in  which  there  probably  would  be  discussion  of  common  meas- 
ures for  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade.  It  was  claimed,  further- 
more, that  the  Southern  slaveholders  feared  the  effect  of  the  action 
of  the  South  American  republics  upon  their  slave  population.16 
Benton  of  Missouri  frankly  declared  that  it  was  inadmissible  that 
"  our  fixed  policy  should  be  discussed  in  a  congress  made  up  of  five 
nations  which  have  already  put  the  black  man  upon  an  equality 
with  the  white,  not  only  in  their  constitutions  but  in  real  life; 
five  nations  which  at  this  moment  have  black  generals  in  their 
armies  and  mulatto  senators  in  their  congresses."  17 

The  chief  domestic  difficulty  of  Adams's  administration  arose 
over  the  controversy  between  the  State  of  Georgia  and  the  United 
States  with  regard  to  the  Indians  within  her  limits.  As  has  been 
pointed  out  in  another  connection,  the  State  of  Georgia,  in  1802, 
had  ceded  to  the  United  States  her  claims  to  lands  lying  in  what 
are  now  Alabama  and  Mississippi  for  $1,250,000.  One  of  the 
conditions  of  this  cession  was  that  the  United  States  should  extin- 
guish, as  soon  as  it  could  be  done  in  a  peaceful  way  and  on  reason- 
able conditions,  all  Indian  titles  to  land  within  the  limits  of  Georgia. 
During  the  next  twenty  years  the  government  made  some  progress 
in  the  direction  of  the  fulfillment  of  its  promise,  but  on  account  of 
the  difficulties  encountered  the  advance  was  not  so  rapid  as  the 
Georgians  wished,  or  as  the  progress  of  the  State  demanded.  De- 
signing white  men  had  joined  the  Indian  tribes  for  the  purpose,  it 
was  charged,  of  organizing  an  Indian  State  within  the  limits  of 
Georgia,  so  that  a  rather  serious  problem  was  presented.  The 
people  grew  impatient  of  the  slow  progress  made  by  the  United 
States  in  extinguishing  the  Indian  claims,  and  in  18 19  the  legisla- 
ture urged  the  President  to  hasten  the  fulfillment  of  the  agreement 
of  1802.     In  1824  the  Indian  chiefs  in  council  decided  to  sell  no 

16  Burgess,  "  The  Middle  Period,"  p.  153 ;  see  also,  Snow,  "  Topics  in 
American  Diplomacy,"  pp.  293-312;  Morse,  "Life  of  John  Quincy  Adams," 
p.  192. 

17  Read  Von  Hoist,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i. 
pp.  4i5-425- 


470  T  HE     UNITED     S  T  AXES 

1824-1828 

more  of  their  lands  to  the  United  States.  In  February,  1825,  how- 
ever, United  States  commissioners  succeeded  in  concluding  at  In- 
dian Spring's  a  treaty  with  Mcintosh,  one  of  the  Creek  chiefs,  by 
which  all  the  lands  occupied  by  the  Creek  Indians  were  to  be 
surrendered  to  the  United  States.  But  when  the  State  surveyors 
entered  upon  the  task  of  examining  the  lands  thus  relinquished  they 
were  resisted  by  the  Indians,  who  repudiated  the  treaty  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  obtained  by  fraud  from  chiefs  who  were  un- 
authorized to  make  it.  The  indignation  of  the  Indians  was,  in 
fact,  so  great  that  they  put  Mcintosh  to  death  and  sent  commission- 
ers to  Washington  to  protest  against  the  enforcement  of  the  fraudu- 
lent agreement.  Thereupon  the  Secretary  of  War  informed  the 
governor  of  the  State,  Mr.  Troup,  that  the  surveys  must  be  dis- 
continued until  the  validity  of  the  treaty  could  be  inquired  into.18 

The  governor  took  offense  at  what  he  regarded  as  an  unwar- 
ranted interference  of  the  United  States  in  the  affairs  of  Georgia, 
declared  that  he  would  not  discontinue  the  surveys,  and  called  upon 
the  legislature  to  "  stand  to  arms  "  and  resist  the  "  encroachments  " 
of  the  general  government  upon  the  reserved  rights  of  the  State. 
At  this  juncture  the  President  dispatched  General  Gaines  to  the 
territory  in  question  with  instructions  to  prevent  the  survey  by 
force,  if  necessary,  but  if  possible  to  obtain  the  assent  of  the  Indians 
(o  the  treaty.  The  governor  protested  at  this  order,  entered  into 
an  angry  correspondence  with  the  Federal  authorities,  and  threat- 
ened secession,  but  the  President  stood  firm,  and  for  a  time  matters 
were  at  a  standstill.  In  January,  1826,  another  agreement  was 
concluded  with  the  Creek  Indians  by  which  the  Treaty  of  Indian 
Springs  was  annulled  and  a  smaller  cession  made  to  the  United 
States,  the  Indians  firmly  refusing  to  yield  all  their  claims.  This 
time  the  governor  repudiated  the  treaty,  and  directed  the  survey 
nf  the  lands  in  accordance  with  the  agreement  of  1825.  which  gave 
Georgia  a  million  acres  more  than  did  the  later  treaty.  Again  the 
Indians  resisted,  and  again  the  President  ordered  the  arrest  of  any 
person  caught  surveying  Indian  lands  lying  west  of  the  line  fixed 
by  the  treaty  of  1826.  A  second  time  the  governor  defied  the 
administration  and  ordered  the  release  of  the  arrested  surveyors 
and  directed  the  militia  to  be  held  in  readiness  to  resist  the  threat- 
ened invasion  by  the  military  power  of  the  United  States,  and 
declared  that  any  attempt  to  enforce  the  Indian  claim  should  be 

1RVon  Hoist.  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States."  vol.  i.  p.  437. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  471 

1824-1828 

regarded  as  an  attack  upon  the  people  and  sovereignty  of  Georgia. 
Adams  felt  that  he  was  bound  to  uphold  the  dignity  of  the  national 
government,  yet  he  hesitated  to  come  to  an  open  collision  with  the 
Georgia  authorities  for  fear  of  provoking  civil  war.  He  therefore 
laid  the  whole  matter  before  Congress,  but  the  opposition,  which 
controlled  a  majority  of  that  body,  was  rather  pleased  at  his  humili- 
ation and  took  no  action  upon  the  matter.19  Thus  Georgia  had  won 
in  an  open  conflict  with  the  United  States.  She  had  successfully 
nullified  Federal  authority,  and  she  had  gone  far  to  establish  her 
claim  as  a  sovereign  State.20 

In  one  respect,  and  in  one  only,  did  the  administration  score 
a  success.  This  was  in  the  management  of  the  foreign  relations  of 
the  country.  During  Adams's  term  a  considerable  number  of  com- 
mercial treaties  were  negotiated :  more  in  fact  than  had  been  con- 
cluded during  the  entire  thirty-six  years  of  national  history  preced- 
ing his  inauguration ;  but  unfortunately  their  good  effect  was  large- 
ly impaired  by  the  act  of  Great  Britain  in  closing  her  West  Indian 
ports  to  American  commerce,  thus  destroying  a  lucrative  trade,  of 
which  the  Americans  had  enjoyed  a  monopoly  for  several  years  past. 
The  British  interdict  upon  American  trade  with  the  West  Indies 
caused  widespread  discontent  in  the  United  States,  and  contributed 
much  to  the  unpopularity  of  the  administration,  but  it  should  be 
said  in  justice  to  Adams  that  he  was  not  altogether  responsible  for 
Great  Britain's  action.  Her  discrimination  against  us  was  partly 
due  to  unwise  legislation  by  Congress.  Preferring  to  let  the  odium 
rest  on  Adams's  shoulders,  Congress  refused  to  resent  in  a  suitable 
manner  Great  Britain's  conduct.  In  this  situation  the  President 
did  what  he  could  to  repair  the  wrong,  and  by  authority  of  an  old 
act  of  Congress  he  issued  a  proclamation  reviving  against  Great 
Britain  a  number  of  trade  restrictions. 

The  last  year  of  his  administration  was  marked  by  a  renewal 
of  the  struggle  over  the  tariff  question  —  in  the  interest  of  higher 
protection.  The  tariff  of  1824,  which  had  been  framed  chiefly  for 
the  protection  of  the  manufacturers  of  coarse  woolens,  had  not 
given  satisfaction.  Much  capital  had  been  turned  into  the  manu- 
facture of  woolen  goods,  which  had  the  effect  of  glutting  the  home 
markets,  and  at  the  same  time  the  output  of  woolen  manufactures 
in  Great  Britain  had  largely  increased  on  account  of  the  admission 

19  Burgess,  "  The  Middle  Period,"  p.  215. 

20  Von  Hoist.  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  i.  p.  447. 


472  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1824-1828 

of  free  wool  to  British  ports.  This  enabled  the  British  manufac- 
turer to  compete  with  the  American  manufacturer  in  his  own  mar- 
kets, and  made  it  necessary,  therefore,  to  increase  the  American 
duties  or  permit  the  ruin  of  the  American  manufacturer.21  More- 
over, it  was  alleged  that  the  ruin  of  the  home  manufacturer  was 
being-  accelerated  by  fraudulent  undervaluation  of  imported  goods. 

In  furtherance  of  the  movement,  a  national  convention  of  pro- 
tectionists, made  up  mainly  of  manufacturers  and  wool  growers 
from  thirteen  States,  was  held  at  Harrisburg,  and  it  adopted  reso- 
lutions recommending  higher  duties  on  wool  and  woolen  goods,  and 
also  on  the  manufactures  of  cotton,  hemp,  flax,  iron,  and  glass. 
Meetings  of  lesser  importance  were  held  at  many  other  places 
throughout  the  country,  all  of  which  adopted  memorials  and  peti- 
tions to  Congress  for  an  increase  of  the  tariff  duties.  The  petitions 
and  memorials  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures, 
and  in  January,  1827,  the  chairman,  Mr.  Mallery  of  Vermont,  re- 
ported the  famous  woolens  bill.  It  proposed  to  place  a  duty  on 
coarse  woolens  so  high  as  to  amount  practically  to  a  prohibitory 
tariff.  Massachusetts,  which  up  to  this  time  had  opposed  high 
tariffs,  now  came  over  to  the  ranks  of  the  protectionists,  while  the 
South,  including  Kentucky,  went  over  to  the  side  of  the  opposition, 
the  bill  passed  the  House  in  February,  1827,  but  was  lost  in  the 
Senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice  President.  Calhoun,  who 
had  in  the  meantime  abandoned  his  original  advocacy  of  the  tariff, 
and  had  become  a  champion  of  free  trade.  The  effect  of  the  con- 
troversy in  Congress  was  to  arouse  intense  excitement  and  opposi- 
tion in  South  Carolina,  where  at  various  public  meetings  in  Colum- 
bia resolutions  were  adopted  advocating  the  secession  of  the  South- 
ern States  in  case  the  proposed  tariff  bill  were  enacted  into  law.22 

The  main  argument  of  these  South  Carolina  protests  was  that 
the  chief  exports  of  the  United  States  were  Southern  products,  and 
therefore  it  was  Southern  industry  which  provided  the  means  for 
the  largest  part  of  the  merchandise  imported  from  abroad ;  that  the 
tariff,  by  adding  to  the  cost  of  foreign  merchandise,  diminished  the 
amount  which  could  be  purchased,  and  thus  became  a  tax  almost 
exclusively  upon  Southern  industry;  that  the  enforced  diminution 
of  imports  placed  a  limitation  upon  the  amount  of  cotton  which 

21  Stanwood,   "  American  Tariff  Controversies,"  vol.   i.  p.   253. 

22  See  "  American  State  Papers,"  "  Finance,"  vol.  v.,  for  a  large  collection 
of  these  resolutions. 


JOHN*     CALDWELL     CALHOUN 

(Born,    17S2.      Died,    1S50) 

After  a  daguerreotype. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  473 

1824-1828 

foreign  countries  could  purchase,  and  thus  hampered  the  export 
trade;  and  that  the  taxes  collected  from  the  South  were  levied  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  Northern  industry,  the  proceeds  being 
expended  mainly  in  making  internal  improvements  in  the  North.23 

At  the  beginning  of  the  next  session  of  Congress  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  reported  a  new  bill  largely  increasing  the 
duties  on  iron,  woolen  goods,  flax,  hemp,  and  a  number  of  other 
articles,  thus  introducing  the  new  principle  of  high  protection  of 
raw  materials  used  in  the  manufactures.  It  is  sometimes  asserted 
that  the  duties  on  raw  materials  were  made  purposely  so  high  as 
to  force  the  New  England  members  into  voting  against  it,  and  thus 
make  them  responsible  for  its  defeat.  And  with  this  weapon 
Adams's  defeat  in  the  approaching  election  could  be  easily  accom- 
plished. But  to  the  surprise  of  its  authors  the  New  England  mem- 
bers voted  for  the  bill  with  all  its  "  abominable  "  features,  preferring 
it  to  no  bill  at  all.  As  finally  passed,  it  increased  very  largely  the 
duty  on  iron,  wool,  and  hemp.  The  principle  of  minimum  valua- 
tion was  applied  to  the  tariff  on  woolen  goods,  that  is,  all  goods 
costing  between  forty  cents  and  $2.50  were  to  be  assessed  as  if 
they  had  cost  $2.50.24  The  law  was  really  in  the  interest  of  the 
hemp  and  wool  growing  section  of  the  West.  It  is  questionable 
whether  the  manufacturers  derived  any  benefit  from  the  measure ;  it 
is  almost  certain  that  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  South  did  not, 
for  it  increased  the  price  of  woolen  fabrics  and  did  not  extend  the 
domestic  market  for  raw  cotton.  The  measure  was  stigmatized  by 
its  enemies  as  the  "  tariff  of  abominations,"  and  John  Randolph 
declared  that  it  referred  to  manufactures  of  no  kind  except  the 
manufacture  of  a  President  of  the  United  States.  Adams's  ap- 
proval of  the  bill  was  a  fitting  close  to  his  unpopular  administration. 

The  measure  stirred  up  great  excitement  in  the  South,  five 
legislatures  formally  protested  against  the  act,  and  Calhoun,  now 
the  acknowledged  Southern  leader,  drew  up  for  the  use  of  the 
South  Carolina  legislature  an  elaborate  paper  styled  "  The  Exposi- 
tion and  Protest."  In  this  paper  he  examined  the  nature  of  the 
Union,  and  argued  with  great  force  that  the  States  were  sovereign 
and  possessed  the  constitutional  power  to  nullify  a  law  of  the  United 
States  if  deemed  to  be  oppressive  or  unconstitutional.25     He  there- 

23  Stanwood.   "  American    Tariff   Controversies,"   vol.   i.   p.   262. 

-4  Taussig,  "  Tariff  History,"  p.  94. 

23  Von  Hoist.   "  Constitutional    History,"   vol.   i.  p.  467. 


474  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1828 

fore  suggested  that  a  State  convention  be  called  to  decide  upon  the 
proper  manner  of  declaring  the  Tariff  Act  null  and  void  in  the 
State  of  South  Carolina,  but  further  action  was  postponed  until 
the  election  of  Jackson,  whose  sympathies,  it  was  believed,  were 
with  the  nullificationists. 

The  campaign  for  the  election  of  Jackson  in  1828  really  began 
shortly  after  his  defeat  in  1824,  and  the  four  years  of  Adams's 
term  were  one  long  drawn-out  contest  upon  the  part  of  his  oppo- 
nents to  discredit  the  administration  and  destroy  his  prospects  for 
reelection.  As  early  as  October,  1825,  the  Tennessee  legislature 
had  renominated  Jackson  by  acclamation,  received  him  with  appro- 
priate ceremonies  at  Nashville,  and  called  upon  the  people  to  repu- 
diate Adams,  who  had  been  foisted  into  the  Presidency  as  the 
result  of  a  corrupt  bargain.  In  Congress  a  coherent  organization 
of  Jackson's  friends  was  formed,  and  their  activity  in  his  behalf 
assumed  a  character  calculated  to  create  the  impression  that  the  ad- 
ministration was  composed  of  rascals  and  that  the  government  was 
reeking  with  corruption.  Investigations  into  various  departments 
of  the  government  were  undertaken,  but  little  was  discovered 
which  reflected  upon  the  honesty  of  the  President,  whom  they  were 
designed  to  discredit.  Resolutions  were  passed  intimating  that  the 
government  was  extravagant,  and  demanding  retrenchment ;  others 
were  introduced  for  no  other  purpose  than  that  of  bringing  Adams 
into  contempt;  while  still  others,  such  as  the  resolution  to  appro- 
priate Si 00,000  to  paint  a  picture  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans  for 
the  decoration  of  the  Capitol,  were  intended  to  bring  into  promi- 
nence the  merits  of  General  Jackson. 

A.dams  was  criticised  for  his  abuse  of  the  appointing  power, 
yet  of  all  our  Presidents  he  was  perhaps  the  least  deserving  of 
criticism  on  this  score.  He  absolutely  refused  to  remove  a  single 
official  for  political  reasons,  although  great  pressure  was  brought 
upon  him  to  do  so,  and  it  was  probably  true,  as  he  said,  that  four- 
fifths  of  those  in  office  were  opposed  to  his  election.  Even  when 
a  New  Orleans  naval  officer  went  out  of  his  way  to  get  up  a  demon- 
stration for  the  purpose  of  insulting  the  administration,  Adams 
could  not  be  induced  to  remove  him,  for  the  reason  that  it  could  not 
be  done  upon  "  any  fixed  principle  which  would  apply  to  others  as 
well  as  to  him." 

Like  his  father,  John  Quincy  Adams  had  many  personal  at- 
tributes which  unfitted  him  for  the  career  of  a  successful  politician. 


THE     DEMOCRATIC     PARTY  475 

1828 

He  was  cold  and  austere  toward  his  friends,  would  not  stretch  a 
point  for  his  most  ardent  supporter,  was  needlessly  disagreeable, 
preferred  his  books  to  discussing  questions  of  patronage,  never  ex- 
changed light  compliments,  and  wholly  lacked  the  gracious  qualities 
that  made  General  Jackson  the  idol  of  the  masses.  That  he  could 
have  done  much  to  stem  the  tide  against  him  there  can  be  little 
doubt ;  but  he  refused  to  attend  political  gatherings,  would  do  noth- 
ing to  placate  antagonisms,  to  soothe  disaffected  States  or  conciliate 
those  who  differed  with  him  on  questions  of  public  policy,  declined 
to  make  political  speeches  under  any  consideration,  and  when  asked 
by  Edward  Everett  what  he  proposed  to  do  to  secure  a  reelection, 
said,  "  Absolutely  nothing."  "  If,"  said  he,  "  the  people  wish  me 
to  be  President  I  shall  not  refuse  the  office ;  but  I  ask  nothing  from 
any  man  or  from  any  body  of  men."  26  It  was  well  known  that  if 
reelected  he  would  not  turn  a  hand  toward  those  who  had  exerted 
themselves  to  secure  his  election. 

With  this  conception  of  his  duty  in  the  premises  it  was  impos- 
sible for  Adams  to  organize  a  large  and  enthusiastic  following 
ready  to  fight  his  cause  in  season  and  out  of  season.  There  were 
no  well  defined  differences  in  the  political  and  economic  policies  of 
the  two  candidates  so  far  as  could  be  ascertained.  The  people  were 
simply  called  upon  to  choose  between  two  personalities;  one,  a 
cold,  highly  trained  statesman  of  distinguished  family;  the  other, 
a  gallant  military  hero,  rough,  genial,  true  to  his  friends,  and  ap- 
parently a  strong,  certainly  a  noisy  believer  in  the  virtue  and  ca- 
pacity of  the  people,  and  an  uncompromising  foe  to  the  "  wicked 
aristocracy,"  which  up  to  this  time  had  filled  the  offices  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  the  exclusion  of  the  common  people.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances there  could  be  but  one  result.  The  new  democracy  of 
the  South  and  WTest  flocked  solidly  to  Jackson,  leaving,  as  Parton 
says,  only  the  book-nourished,  silver-forked  aristocracy  of  the  East 
to  vote  for  Adams.27  The  result  of  the  election  showed  that  Jack- 
son had  carried  every  State  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains,  and 
every  one  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  except  Delaware  and 
Maryland.  Through  the  aid  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  a  shrewd  and 
influential  politician  of  New  York,  Jackson  also  secured  twenty  of 
the  thirty-six  electoral  votes  of  that  State.  He  also  received  one 
electoral  vote  in  Maine,  five  in  Maryland,  and  stranger  still,  the 

20  Morse,  "  Life  of  J.  Q.  Adams,"  p.  167. 

-"  Parton,   "  Life  of  Jackson,"   vol.   iii.  p.   150. 


476  T  H  E     U  NITED     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1823 

entire  vote  of  Pennsylvania,  a  State  noted  for  its  strong  protection- 
ist tendencies,  but  which  had  been  persuaded  by  Jackson's  managers 
to  believe  that  he  favored  a  high  tariff.  The  total  number  of 
electoral  votes  received  by  Jackson  was  one  hundred  and  seventy- 
eight,  while  Adams  had  but  eighty-three.28  Calhoun  was  reelected 
Vice  President.  The  result  of  the  election  of  1828  was  an  over- 
whelming triumph  of  the  new  democracy.  Xew  political  and  social 
forces  in  American  life  were  now  at  work,  and  a  race  of  new  rulers 
had  risen  up  to  guide  and  direct  them.  Adams  was  the  last  of  the 
great  statesmen  who  belonged  to  the  old  school,  and  many  years 
were  destined  to  elapse  before  another  of  his  type  was  called  to 
occupy  the  White  House  and  preside  over  the  destinies  of  the 
Republic.20  "  As  President,"  says  James  Schouler,  "  the  two 
Adamses  passed  quickly  out  among  the  failures  of  the  age,  ac- 
complishing little  to  be  long  remembered;  but  as  fearless  men  on 
the  floor  of  an  American  Congress,  stirring  the  blood,  forcing  con- 
viction by  example,  and  compelling  willing  or  unwilling  attention, 
they  stand  on  the  canvas  the  most  vivid  figures  of  two  remarkable 
epochs  of  American  history  full  sixty  years  apart.  John  Adams 
stood  among  the  immortals  in  youth  as  John  Ouincy  Adams  did  in 
old  age."  30 

28  Stanwood,  "  History  of  the  Presidency,"  p.  148. 

29  Von  Hoist,  "  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  ii.  p.  1. 

30  Schouler,  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  vol.  iii.  p.  400. 


Chapter  XXI 

THE  JACKSONIAN   EPOCH.     1 828-1 841 


ANDREW  JACKSON 

WITH  the  accession  of  Andrew  Jackson  to  the  Presidency  in 
1829  a  new  epoch  in  American  history  may  be  said  to 
have  begun.  Socially  and  intellectually  the  distinguish- 
ing feature  was  the  further  development  of  the  transition  from 
colonialism  to  nationalism  and  democracy,  which  had  begun  after 
the  close  of  the  second  war  with  England.  Industrially,  a  change 
almost  revolutionary  in  extent,  stimulated  by  the  policy  of  protec- 
tion, was  taking  place  as  a  result  of  the  invention  of  labor-saving 
machinery  and  the  application  of  steam  to  land  transportation. 
Politically,  a  new  party  with  a  new  policy  had  gained  control  of  the 
government,  and  old  traditions  were  soon  to  be  swept  away.  A 
new  and  unique  personality  had  been  called  to  the  chief  magistracy. 
Born  in  1767  in  the  backwoods  of  North  Carolina  of  humble 
Scotch-Irish  parents,  Jackson  passed  his  boyhood  amid  the  wild 
scenes  of  that  primitive  region,  his  youth  having  been  embittered 
by  several  incidents  of  the  Revolutionary  War  from  which  he  had 
suffered,  and  the  scars  of  which  he  carried  to  his  grave.  He  lacked 
the  advantages  of  education  and  experience  such  as  Adams  and 
Jefferson  had  enjoyed,  neither  was  he  possessed  of  the  unquench- 
able thirst  for  knowledge  which  marked  the  early  life  of  Abraham 
Lincoln.  The  rude  sports  of  the  frontier,  such  as  horse  racing  and 
cock  fighting,  had  far  more  attraction  for  him  than  steady  labor, 
either  physical  or  intellectual.  Picking  up  a  smattering  knowledge 
of  the  law  from  such  books  as  were  at  hand,  he  crossed  the  moun- 
tains into  that  still  more  primitive  part  of  North  Carolina  soon  to 
become  the  State  of  Tennessee  and  entered  upon  the  practice  of  his 
profession,  first  at  Jonesboro  and  later  at  Nashville.  Commending 
himself  to  his  new  neighbors,  he  was  selected  as  the  public  prose- 
cutor of  the  district,  and  acquired  a  local  reputation  full  of  terror 

477 


478  T  II  E     UNI  T  E  D     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1828 

to  evil  doers.  When  the  district  was  ready  to  apply  for  statehood 
Jackson  was  chosen  as  a  member  of  the  convention  which  prepared 
its  first  constitution,  and  in  the  course  of  time  was  chosen  the  State's 
first  representative  in  Congress.  He  even  became  a  justice  of  the 
State  Supreme  Court,  and  at  two  subsequent  periods  served  short 
terms  in  the  United  States  Senate,  in  each  case  resigning  before 
the  end  of  his  term.  Apparently  lie  cared  little  for  public  life  at 
this  time,  and  certainly  the  impression  he  made  as  a  senator  was 
anything  but  favorable.  Long  afterward  he  was  remembered  by 
Albert  Gallatin  as  a  tall,  awkward  frontiersman  with  his  hair  ar- 
ranged in  a  queue  and  tied  behind  his  head  in  an  eel  skin. 

Far  different  was  his  career  as  a  military  leader,  however,  for 
it  was  here  that  he  exhibited  those  unusual  qualities  of  mind  and 
heart  which  were  destined  to  make  him  the  idol  of  the  masses,  and 
carry  him  into  the  Presidential  office.  Until  late  in  life  he  ap- 
parently did  not  think  himself  fitted  for  the  Presidency,  and  when 
his  name  was  first  mentioned  in  182 1  he  ridiculed  the  suggestion 
as  preposterous,  saying  that  he  was  fit  only  to  command  a  body 
of  men  in  a  rough  sort  of  way.  Few  of  our  Presidents  have  so 
impressed  their  personality  upon  the  history  of  their  time  as  Jackson. 
Some  of  his  mental  traits  need  to  be  mentioned  in  order  to  afford 
a  proper  background  for  the  study  of  his  administration.  Meas- 
ured by  the  standard  applied  to  his  predecessors,  Jackson  was  an 
ignorant  man,  hasty  in  judgment  and  tenacious  of  his  opinions. 
Having  reached  a  conclusion,  he  could  rarely  ever  be  convinced  of 
the  possibility  of  error,  certainly  not  by  political  opponents.  He 
always  felt  sure  that  he  was  right,  and  could  never  tolerate  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  anyone.  To  differ  with  him  meant  to  incur 
his  enmity.  Those  who  were  fortunate  enough  to  win  his  friend- 
ship never  lacked  evidences  of  his  favor;  but  with  those  who  op- 
posed him  he  had  but  one  course,  namely,  eternal  war.  Xor  could 
he  ever  forget  or  forgive  those  who  opposed  him.  In  action  he  was 
direct  and  aggressive,  sometimes  even  lawless  and  violent.  To- 
ward the  accomplishment  of  a  given  object  he  moved  along  the 
shortest  and  straightest  line,  exhibiting  no  patience  with  circuitous 
methods,  and  destroying,  if  he  could,  whatever  obstacle  blocked 
his  path.  His  domestic  life  was  pure,  his  integrity  of  character 
incorruptible,  his  patriotism  of  a  high  order,  his  energy  unbounded, 
and  his  intentions  generally  good.  These  were  the  qualities  which 
seized  the  popular  fancy,  and  gave  him  a  hold  upon  the  plain  people 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  479 

1828 

such  as  none  of  his  predecessors  had  ever  enjoyed.  By  them  he 
was  loved  and  trusted,  to  them  he  spoke  like  an  oracle,  and  whether 
the  advice  was  good  or  bad  their  one  response  was  "  Hurrah  for 
Jackson !  " 

At  the  time  of  Jackson's  accession  the  population  of  the  United 
States  was  about  thirteen  millions,  or  more  than  double  that  of 
twenty-five  years  previous.  This  increase  represented  a  natural 
growth,  but  little  being  due  at  that  time  to  foreign  immigration. 
During  the  same  period  the  area  of  the  country  had  more  than 
doubled  while  the  Union  had  been  increased  by  the  admission  of 
seven  new  States,  all  except  one  (Maine)  being  situated  in  the 
West  or  Southwest.  The  most  populous  States  were  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania,  both  of  which  had  passed  Virginia.  The  center 
of  population  was  now  near  the  western  boundary  of  Maryland. 
The  population  at  this  time  was  chiefly  rural,  less  than  ten  per 
cent,  living  in  towns  of  over  eight  thousand  inhabitants.  The 
largest  cities  were  New  York,  with  a  population  of  two  hundred 
thousand ;  Philadelphia  with  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  thou- 
sand ;  Baltimore  with  eighty  thousand,  and  Boston  with  sixty 
thousand.  In  the  South  the  largest  cities  were  New  Orleans, 
Charleston,  Savannah  and  Richmond,  none  of  which  had  a  popula- 
tion of  as  many  as  fifty  thousand.  Cincinnati,  the  largest  city 
of  the  West,  was  but  an  ordinary  town,  while  Chicago  did  not  yet 
have  a  legal  existence.  The  foundations  of  Omaha,  Denver,  and 
other  Western  cities  were  not  even  laid.  Differences  of  wealth  had 
not  yet  become  a  menace  to  the  nation;  in  fact  there  were  only 
three  millionaires  in  the  country:  Lawrence  of  Boston,  Astor  of 
New  York,  and  Girard  of  Philadelphia.  The  increase  of  the  slave 
population  had  kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  the  white  population, 
and  now  numbered  over  two  millions. 

Industrial  conditions  had  been  revolutionized  by  the  improve- 
ments in  transportation  and  by  inventions  of  labor-saving  machin- 
ery. Steamboats  were  plying  on  all  the  Western  rivers  and  on 
the  Great  Lakes,  and  many  improvements  in  steam  navigation  had 
been  made.  Considerable  progress  had  also  been  achieved  in  arti- 
ficial waterways,  the  most  important  of  which  was  the  Erie  Canal, 
connecting  Lake  Erie  with  the  Hudson  River,  a  distance  of  360 
miles.  This  valuable  watercourse  was  due  to  the  energy  and  fore- 
sight of  DeWitt  Clinton,  a  nephew  of  George  Clinton,  at  the  time 
of  completion  the  Governor  of  New  York.     Its  effect  upon  the  in- 


480  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1828 

dustrial  developments  of  New  York  may  be  readily  seen  from  the 
fact  that  the  cost  of  transporting  freight  from  New  York  to 
Buffalo  dropped  from  one  hundred  dollars  a  ton  to  fourteen  dol- 
lars, the  year  after  its  opening.  New  York  City  soon  became  the 
metropolis  of  the  country,  while  a  great  impetus  was  given  to  the 
development  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  The  construction  of 
the  Erie  Canal  was  followed  speedily  by  others  of  less  magnitude, 
and  the  Ohio  Canal,  connecting  Lake  Erie  with  the  Ohio  River,  and 
the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal,  connecting  Pittsburg  with  Wash- 
ington, were  soon  completed.  It  was  estimated  that  at  the  time  of 
the  accession  of  Jackson  some  1,300  miles  of  canal  had  been  com- 
pleted in  the  United  States,  while  nearly  2,000  more  were  in  course 
of  construction.  But  the  most  important  factor  in  the  industrial 
and  economic  development  of  the  country  was  the  application  of 
steam  to  land  transportation.  In  1828  the  first  spike  was  driven  on 
the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  by  the  venerable  Charles  Carroll, 
of  Maryland,  the  last  surviving  signer  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence ;  and  three  years  later  a  locomotive  was  hauling  cars  over 
a  railroad  in  South  Carolina.  Within  twelve  years  over  two  thou- 
sand miles  of  railroad  were  in  operation.  Intimately  connected 
with  the  building  of  railroads  was  the  development  of  the  iron  in- 
dustry in  Pennsylvania,  which  was  greatly  stimulated  at  this  time 
by  the  application  of  anthracite  to  the  process  of  smelting. 

This  period  was  also  one  of  great  social  and  intellectual  transi- 
tion. New  and  powerful  forces  were  for  the  first  time  coming  into 
play,  and  a  general  democratization  of  American  life  and  institu- 
tions was  rapidly  taking  place.  Almost  everywhere  a  wide  exten- 
sion of  suffrage  was  made  although  free  negroes  were  disfranchised 
about  this  time  in  two  States,  North  Carolina  (1835),  and  Penn- 
sylvania (1837).  Also,  the  old-time  restrictions  for  eligibility  to 
public  office  were  removed,  so  that  the  humblest  citizen  was  quali- 
fied for  the  highest  station.  At  the  same  time  many  of  the  ad- 
ministrative offices  which  had  formerly  been  filled  either  by  ap- 
pointment by  the  governor  or  by  the  legislature  were  now  made 
elective  by  the  people.  This  extreme  democratic  movement  was 
soon  to  sweep  into  its  grasp  even  the.  judiciary.  In  1832  Missis- 
sippi  adopted  a  new  constitution,  taking  the  selection  of  the  judges 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  governor  and  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  the 
people.  Mississippi's  example  was  soon  followed  by  other  States, 
and  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War  less  than  half  a  dozen 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  481 

1828 

retained  appointed  judiciaries.  Still  another  feature  of  the  demo- 
cratic movement  was  the  introduction  of  the  principle  of  the  refer- 
endum in  legislation,  according  to  which  the  validity  of  certain 
important  legislative  acts  was  made  to  depend  upon  the  approval 
of  the  electorate  at  the  polls.  By  1850  there  was  scarcely  a  State 
in  which  this  principle  of  popular  cooperation  in  law-making  was 
not  being  resorted  to  in  practice. 

It  was  about  this  time,  too,  that  the  development  of  American 
literature  proper  had  its  beginning.  William  Cullen  Bryant,  Wash- 
ington Irving,  James  Fenimore  Cooper,  Fitz-Greene  Halleck,  and 
Noah  Webster  were  already  at  the  height  of  their  powers,  while 
Emerson,  Hawthorne,  Longfellow,  Lowell,  Whittier,  Poe,  N.  P. 
Willis,  and  George  Bancroft  were  soon  to  be  famous  names.  In 
law,  Kent,  Wheaton  and  Story,  in  science,  Benjamin  Silliman  and 
others  had  already  entered  upon  careers  which  were  to  make  the 
world  wiser  by  their  productions.  Andrew  Jackson  was  a  typical 
representative  of  the  new  democratic  ideas,  both  political  and  social, 
of  the  time,  and  was  eminently  fitted  by  his  character  to  give  force 
and  direction  to  them. 

The  character  of  his  inauguration  was  in  keeping  with  the 
Jacksonian  idea  that  the  government  belonged  to  the  people,  and 
accordingly  they  descended  upon  the  capital  by  thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  from  every  part  of  the  land.  Judge  Story,  who 
was  an  eye-witness  to  the  scene,  declared  that  Washington  City 
had  never  seen  such  a  throng,  and  Daniel  Webster  wrote  that  men 
came  from  a  distance  of  five  hundred  miles  to  see  the  "  Old  Hero," 
who,  they  seemed  to  think,  had  rescued  the  government  from  some 
great  calamity.1  It  was  generally  believed  that  Jackson,  upon 
coming  into  power,  would  reward  his  friends  and  punish  his 
enemies,  although,  in  a  letter  to  Monroe  shortly  after  the  latter's 
election  to  the  Presidency,  he  had  advised  him  to  avoid  all  ap- 
pearance of  party  spirit,  and  to  make  no  appointments  except  upon 
the  basis  of  merit.  But  the  office  seekers,  evidently  believing  that 
Jackson  would  make  a  clean  sweep,  appeared  in  large  numbers ; 
Adams  asserted  that  the  editor  of  every  slanderous  or  scurrilous 
newspaper  in  the  country  attended  the  inauguration,  and  was  easily 
distinguishable  by  his  excessive  enthusiasm  for  Jackson.  Parton, 
who  was  an  eye-witness,  says  that  the  descent  upon  Washington 
was  like  the  inundation  of  Rome  by  the  northern  barbarians,  save 

1  Curtis,  "  Life  of  Daniel  Webster,"  vol.  i.  p.  340. 


482  T  H  E     U  N  I  T  E  I)     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1828 

that  the  tumultuous  tide  came  in  from  different  points  of  the  com- 
pass. On  the  night  following-  the  inauguration  the  visitors  took 
possession  of  the  White  House,  where  barrels  of  orange  punch  had 
been  provided  for  their  refreshment,  and  in  their  eagerness  to  shake 
hands  with  the  President,  rough  men  stood  with  muddy  boots  upon 
the  costly  furniture  of  the  White  House  and  smashed  the  fine 
chandeliers  which  hung  overhead.  At  one  time  during  the  recep- 
tion the  press  was  so  great  that  Jackson  was  in  danger  of  injury, 
and  was  rescued  with  difficulty  from  the  onslaught  of  his  friends.2 
To  none  of  these  proceedings  was  Adams  a  witness.  Dis- 
regarding the  time-honored  custom,  according  to  which  the  out- 
going and  incoming  President  rode  side  by  side  to  the  Capitol  on 
inauguration  day,  Adams  refused  to  attend  the  ceremonies,  and 
like  his  father  at  the  time  of  the  inauguration  of  Jefferson,  he  re- 
mained quietly  at  home.  A  few  days  later  he  returned  to  Quincy, 
Massachusetts,  resolved  "  to  go  into  the  deepest  retirement  and 
withdraw  from  all  connections  with  public  affairs."  3  But  in  this 
expectation  he  was  doomed  to  disappointment,  for  soon  he  was 
called  again  into  the  arena  of  politics  as  a  member  of  Congress, 
and  the  seventeen  years  which  he  spent  in  the  national  legislature 
constitute  perhaps  the  most  brilliant  period  of  his  long  public 
career. 

II 

THE  SPOILS  SYSTEM  ;   CONTROVERSY  WITH   GEORGIA  ;   NULLIFICATION 
IN    SOUTH    CAROLINA 

Many  who  came  to  the  inauguration  with  the  expectation  of 
being  rewarded  were  not  disappointed.  Although  the  President- 
elect so  carefully  concealed  his  intentions  that  no  one  could  tell 
what  would  be  his  policy,  Webster,  the  day  before  the  inauguration, 
predicted  that  "  General  Jackson  would  probably  make  some  re- 
movals, but  not  a  great  many  immediately."  4  In  his  inaugural 
Jackson  gave  an  intimation  of  his  intentions  by  an  allusion  to  the 
"  task  of  reform,"  which  the  "  recent  demonstration  of  public  senti- 
ment had  inscribed  on  the  list  of  executive  duties,"  and  gave  assur- 
ances that  "  the  causes  which  have  disturbed  the  rightful  course 

-  Parton,    "Lite    of    Jackson,"    vol.    Hi.    p.    171. 

:;  Mow,  "Life  of  Adams,"  p.  216. 

*  Parton,  "  Life  of  Jackson."  vol.  iii.  p.   168. 


JACKSOiNIAN     EPOCH  483 

1828 

of  appointments  "  would  be  "  counteracted  "  and  the  abuses  cor- 
rected. The  work  of  reform  was  promptly  begun.  A  wholesale 
removal  of  those  in  office  followed,  and  the  vacancies  were  filled 
with  Jackson's  supporters.  Efficiency  and  skill  acquired  from  long 
experience  seemed  to  count  for  nothing;  in  fact  long  service  was 
regarded  as  a  good  reason  for  removal. 

Up  to  this  time  the  civil  service  had  been  looked  upon  as  a 
sort  of  life  profession,  and  those  who  had  secured  appointments 
often  arranged  their  private  affairs  with  the  expectation  of  spend- 
ing their  remaining  years  in  the  public  service  without  the  proba- 
bility of  disturbance  by  changes  of  administration.  At  the  time 
of  Jackson's  accession  there  were  not  a  few  persons  in  office  who 
had  been  appointed  by  President  Washington.  During  the  forty 
years  intervening  between  the  inauguration  and  that  of  Jackson  no 
President  had  found  cause  to  remove  them.5  The  total  number  of 
removals  during  this  long  period  had  probably  been  less  than  one 
hundred,  and  nearly  all  of  these  had  been  for  good  cause,  such  as 
misbehavior  or  incompetency,  and  then  only  after  investigation.  It 
remained  for  Jackson  to  break  the  record  by  removing,  in  the  first 
year  of  his  term,  nearly  five  hundred  postmasters  (Senator  Benton 
says  nearly  seven  hundred),  and  some  two  hundred  and  forty  other 
officials,  which  necessarily  affected  a  large  number  of  subordinates, 
and  thus  involved  in  all  probability  two  thousand  changes.  Of 
Jackson's  predecessors  since  Jefferson,  Madison  had  made  five  re- 
movals, Monroe  nine,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  but  two.0 

A  reign  of  terror  set  in  among  the  old  office  holders;  several 
tragic  occurrences  followed  in  some  of  the  departments,  and  many 
pathetic  incidents  happened  in  connection  with  the  enforcement  of 
the  proscription.7  No  explanation  was  given  when  a  resignation 
was  demanded,  unless  it  was  that  the  offices  were  not  hereditary, 
or  that  no  one  had  a  right  to  government  support.  Jackson's  ap- 
pointees were  mainly  those  who  had  cheered  lustily  for  him  in  the 

5  Concerning  the  appointment  of  a  personal  friend  to  oflke,  Washington 
wrote:  "He  is  welcome  to  my  home  and  to  my  heart;  but  with  all  his  good  qual- 
ities he  is  not  a  man  of  business.  His  opponent,  with  all  his  politics  hostile  to 
me,  is  a  man  of  business.  My  private  feelings  have  nothing  to  do  in  the  case. 
I  am  not  George  Washington,  but  President  of  the  United  States.  As  George 
Washington  I  would  do  this  man  any  kindness  in  my  power — as  President  of 
the  United  States  I  can  do  nothing." 

6  Parton,  "Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  p.  210;  also  Fish,  "The  Civil  Service 
and  the  Patronage,"  pp.  126-127:  Sumner,  "Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  147. 

7  Read  Parton,  '"Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  pp.  212-220. 


484  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1828 

campaign  or  had  otherwise  actively  shown  their  allegiance.  Many 
of  them  had  no  other  qualifications,  and  it  turned  out  that  some 
of  them  were  thieves  and  rascals.  John  Quincy  Adams  expressed 
a  common  judgment  when  he  declared  that  "  very  few  reputable 
appointments  have  been  made,  and  those  confined  to  persons  who 
were  indispensably  necessary  to  the  office.  The  appointments  are 
exclusively  of  violent  partisans,  and  every  editor  of  a  scurrilous 
and  slanderous  newspaper  is  provided  for."  A  few  of  the  worst 
appointments  were  rejected  by  the  Senate,  but  Jackson  regarded 
this  as  an  infringement  of  his  prerogative  and  resisted  it  with  his 
usual  ultimate  success.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  he  desired  the 
appointment  of  any  but  honest  and  capable  persons  to  office  under 
his  administration,  but  it  was  impossible  to  avoid  mistakes  when 
the  appointments  were  made  for  political  reasons. 

Perhaps  a  large  share  of  the  responsibility  for  introducing  the 
spoils  system  should  also  rest  upon  his  advisers,  rather  than  upon 
himself.  He  was  largely  under  the  influence  of  the  New  York 
politicians,  especially  his  Secretary  of  State,  Van  Buren,  and  is  re- 
ported to  have  declared  that  he  was  no  politician,  but  if  he  were,  he 
would  be  one  of  the  New  York  type.  The  view  of  a  New  York 
politician  was  well  expressed  by  William  L.  Marcy,  a  United  States 
Senator  from  that  State,  who  in  1830,  speaking  of  his  party  asso- 
ciates, said,  "  When  they  are  contending  for  victory  they  avow 
the  intention  of  enjoying  the  fruits  of  it.  If  they  are  defeated  they 
expect  to  retire  from  office.  If  they  are  successful  they  claim, 
as  a  matter  of  right,  the  advantage  of  success.  They  see  nothing 
wrong  in  the  rule  that  to  the  victors  belong  the  spoils  of  the 
enemy."  Jackson  accepted  this  view  as  a  cardinal  doctrine  of  his 
political  ethics,  without  realizing  the  demoralizing  effects  of  such 
a  policy  upon  the  character  of  the  public  service.  Thus  he  became 
the  instrument  of  what  was  for  many  years  the  most  pernicious 
feature  of  our  civil  service  —  a  policy  which  stimulated  political 
strife,  placed  a  premium  upon  corruption,  enfeebled  the  public 
service,  and  debauched  national  politics,  until  the  Civil  Service  Act 
of  1883  was  passed,  half  a  century  later. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  spoils  system  had  already 
been  introduced  into  the  politics  of  several  States,  notably  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania,  and  doubtless  would  have  appeared  in 
national  politics  sooner  or  later  whether  Jackson  had  been  elected 
or  not.     Popular  opinion  demanded  its  introduction   into  the  na- 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  485 

1828 

tional  service  and  Jackson  merely  served  as  the  agent  of  the  public 
in  adopting  the  policy  as  his  own.  But  his  conduct  was  strangely 
inconsistent  with  the  good  advice  he  had  volunteered  to  Monroe 
just  after  the  latter's  election,  and  also  inconsistent  with  his  former 
opposition  to  the  appointment  of  members  of  Congress,  for  in  one 
year  he  appointed  more  than  did  any  one  of  his  predecessors  in  a 
whole  term.8 

Jackson  chose  for  his  official  advisers  a  body  of  men  none  of 
whom,  with  a  single  exception,  had  gained  national  reputations  for 
conspicuous  public  service.  The  exception  was  Martin  Van  Buren 
of  New  York,  who  had  lately  been  elected  governor  of  that  State, 
and  who  now  became  Secretary  of  State  in  the  new  Cabinet.  For 
Secretary  of  War  Jackson  selected  John  H.  Eaton,  an  old  Tennessee 
friend  and  neighbor,  who  had  served  in  the  United  States  Senate. 
The  others  are  scarcely  remembered  by  the  general  student  of 
American  history.  Jackson,  however,  did  not  rely  upon  his  Cabinet 
for  advice,  and  in  fact  seldom  had  Cabinet  meetings.  He  either 
formed  his  own  opinions  or  sought  the  advice  of  a  small  coterie  of 
personal  friends  who  gathered  about  the  White  House  at  his  call, 
or  lived  with  him  upon  terms  of  great  familiarity.  This  little 
group  was  popularly  known  as  the  "  Kitchen  Cabinet."  9  Its  most 
conspicuous  member  was  Major  William  B.  Lewis,  another  old 
friend  and  neighbor,  who,  for  four  years  had  been  his  political 
manager  and  was  now  a  member  of  the  presidential  household,  and 
an  unofficial  adviser  to  the  President.  Another  member  was  Amos 
Kendall,  a  graduate  of  Dartmouth  College,  and  a  newspaper  editor 
of  some  literary  ability,  who  rendered  great  service  to  Jackson  in 
the  preparation  of  his  state  papers.  Still  another  was  young  Henry 
Lee,  who  likewise  possessed  literary  talents  and  served  the  Presi- 
dent in  a  similar  manner.  There  were  also  two  editors,  Duff  Green 
and  Isaac  Hill,  whose  advice  he  frequently  sought.  To  this  group 
of  "  unconstitutional  "  advisers  the  President  gave  his  full  confi- 
dence; through  them  lay  the  shortest  path  to  his  favor,  and  upon 
their  counsel  he  relied  for  assistance  in  shaping  his  public  policies. 

In  his  first  message  to  Congress  Jackson  foreshadowed  in  a 
general  way  the  future  policy  of  his  administration.  Lie  there  gave 
notice  that  he  would  oppose  the  rechartering  of  the  United  States 
Bank,  whose  expediency  and  constitutionality  he  said  "  were  ques- 

8  Sumner,    "  Life   of  Jackson,"   p.    147. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  14^. 


486  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1828 

tioned  by  a  large  portion  of  our  fellow  citizens  "  in  spite  of  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  the  contrary;  he  gave  the 
Cherokee  Indians  to  understand  that  their  attempt  to  set  up  an 
independent  sovereignty  within  the  State  of  Georgia  would  not  be 
tolerated,  and  recommended  Congress  to  set  apart  a  district  of  ter- 
ritory west  of  the  Mississippi  for  the  permanent  occupancy  of  such 
tribes  as  could  be  induced  to  emigrate  thereto;  declared  that  with 
regard  to  foreign  affairs  he  should  ask  for  nothing  that  was  not 
right,  and  submit  to  nothing  that  was  wrong;  sounded  a  note  of 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  internal  improvements  under  Federal 
auspices,  chiefly  on  constitutional  grounds;  recommended  that  the 
surplus  revenues  in  the  national  treasury  be  distributed  among  the 
States,  and  advised  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  permitting 
popular  election  of  the  President.  "  Since  circumstances,"  he  said, 
referring  to  Clay's  part  in  the  election  of  Adams,  "  may  give  the 
power  of  deciding  the  election  to  a  single  individual,  may  he  not 
be  tempted  to  name  his  reward?  "  10  His  utterances  upon  the  tariff 
were  conveniently  vague  and  ambiguous.  The  late  tariff,  he  said, 
had  neither  injured  agriculture  and  commerce  nor  benefited  manu- 
factures as  had  been  anticipated ;  but  "  some  modifications  "  were 
desirable  and  should  be  considered  in  a  non-partisan  spirit. 

The  controversy  between  Georgia  and  the  United  States  with 
regard  to  the  Creek  Indians  occupied,  as  has  already  been  men- 
tioned, the  attention  of  the  Adams  administration  during  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  presidential  term,  ending  in  the  virtual  tri- 
umph of  Georgia.  Emboldened  by  its  success  with  regard  to  the 
Creeks,  the  State  now  undertook,  December,  1828,  by  act  of  legis- 
lature, to  extend  its  jurisdiction  over  a  part  of  the  Cherokee  nation 
which  occupied  a  large  and  fertile  region  in  the  northwestern  part 
of  the  State,  and  demanded  in  strong  terms  that  the  national  gov- 
ernment should  extinguish  the  title  to  all  lands  held  by  the  Chero- 
kees  in  the  State.  The  act  furthermore  divided  up  the  Cherokee 
lands  into  counties,  and  excluded  Indian  testimony  from  the  courts 
in  all  cases  involving  the  interests  of  white  men.  The  people  of 
Georgia  very  naturally  regarded  the  Indian  occupancy  of  this  re- 
gion, constituting  as  it  did  a  semi-independent  community  within 
their  borders,  as  an  encumbrance  upon  their  own  sovereignty  and 
an  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the  State.  The  Indians  had  ap- 
pealed to  President  Adams  during  the  last  days  of  his  administra- 

10  Richardson.  "Message?  and   Papers  of  the  Presidents."  vol.  ii.  p.  447. 


JACKSON  IAN     EPOCH  487 

1828-1830 

tion  for  protection  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Georgia  au- 
thorities, but  he  resolved  not  to  embarrass  his  successor,  and 
accordingly  allowed  the  matter  to  go  over  to  the  next  administra- 
tion. The  Georgia  authorities  had  undoubtedly  calculated  that 
Jackson's  well-known  sympathy  with  them  in  their  Indian  policy 
could  be  turned  to  good  advantage,  and  they  showed  their  confi- 
dence in  him  by  voting  unanimously  for  him  at  the  late  election. 
In  the  month  following  his  inauguration  he  informed  the  Indians 
that  their  attempt  to  establish  an  independent  government  within 
the  limits  of  Georgia  would  not  be  countenanced  by  the  executive 
of  the  United  States,  and  advised  them  to  emigrate  beyond  the 
Mississippi  or  submit  to  the  laws  of  the  State.  He  furthermore 
withdrew  the  Federal  troops  which  had  been  sent  to  Georgia  to 
protect  the  Indians,  and  allowed  the  Georgia  militia  to  take  charge. 
The  Indians  having  failed  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  executive, 
now  resorted  to  the  courts;  but  with  no  better  success.  When  the 
State  courts  took  jurisdiction  of  a  case  of  murder  against  a  Cherokee 
named  Tassels  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  undertook  to  have  the  case  removed  to  that  body  on  a  writ 
of  error,  but  the  State  authorities  defied  the  Federal  writ,  and  on 
December  28,  1830,  Tassels  was  hanged  by  direction  of  Governor 
Troup.  The  Indians  now  filed  a  bill  in  the  Supreme  Court,  pray- 
ing for  a  writ  of  injunction  to  restrain  the  State  from  interfering 
with  their  treaty  rights,  but  the  court  decided,  in  January,  183 1, 
that  the  Cherokee  nation  was  not  a  State,  and  could  not,  therefore, 
be  a  party  to  a  suit  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States;  in  other 
words,  that  the  remedy  was  political  and  not  judicial  in  its  na- 
ture.11 In  the  case  of  Worcester  against  Georgia,  decided  in  the 
following  year,  the  court  gave  a  decision  in  favor  of  the  Indians  on 
the  ground  that  the  Georgia  statutes  which  sought  to  extend  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  over  the  Cherokee  lands  contravened 
Federal  treaties,  and  ordered  the  release  of  the  accused,12  but  the 
President  never  executed  it  and  is  said  to  have  declared  that  he 
would  leave  its  enforcement  to  the  Chief  Justice  who  made  the 
decision,  and  at  the  same  time  leave  it  to  the  people  to  decide  at  the 
approaching  Presidential  election  whether  his  conduct  was  proper 
or  not.13     This  was  but  another  evidence  of  the  character  of  the 

ii  Peters  U.  S.  Reports,  p.   1. 

12  Ibid.,  p.  515. 

13  Greeley,   "  The   American   Conflict,"   vol.    i.   p.    106. 


488  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1830-1832 

new  democracy  which  was  in  control  of  the  government,  and  was 
symptomatic  of  the  crude  views  of  constitutional  law  then  prevail- 
ing, even  in  the  highest  circles.  The  vexatious  Indian  question  was 
finally  settled  by  an  act  of  Congress  of  1834,  creating  an  Indian 
territory  beyond  the  Mississippi,  to  which  the  Cherokees  and  the 
Creeks  were  to  be  removed  as  soon  as  practicable.  By  treaties 
made  with  the  Choctaws  and  Chickasaws  of  Mississippi  in  1830  and 
1832,  these  two  tribes,  in  consideration  of  the  payment  of  stipulated 
sums,  agreed  to  remove  to  the  new  territory.  To  these  four  tribes 
were  presently  added  the  Seminoles  of  Florida.  Before  Jackson 
retired  from  office,  therefore,  most  of  the  Southern  Indians  had 
been  removed  from  the  States  in  which  they  had  been  regarded  as 
an  encumbrance,  to  the  Indian  Territory,  where  their  descendants, 
known  as  the  five  civilized  tribes,  live  to  this  day  undisturbed  by 
the  encroachments  of  the  whites. 

As  Jackson  leaned  toward  the  States  rights  view  in  regard 
to  the  Indian  question,  so  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  internal  im- 
provements under  national  auspices  he  was  inclined  to  the  narrower 
view  adopted  by  Madison  and  Monroe  that  the  general  government 
had  no  constitutional  authority  for  the  practice  which  it  had  fol- 
lowed in  this  respect.  He  proposed  that  the  surplus  revenues  of 
the  government  be  distributed  among  the  States,  in  order  that 
they  might  make,  under  their  own  direction,  such  improvements  as 
to  them  seemed  expedient.  The  Congress,  however,  did  not  take 
this  view  of  the  matter,  but  proceeded  to  pass  an  act  which  pledged 
the  aid  of  the  government  in  the  construction  of  a  turnpike  running 
from  Maysville,  Kentucky,  to  Lexington,  a  distance  of  some  sixty 
miles.  The  President,  true  to  his  convictions,  promptly  vetoed  the 
measure,  on  the  ground  that  the  Maysville  road  was  not  a  truly 
national  enterprise,  and  therefore  not  an  object  for  national  aid.14 
The  friends  of  the  measure  were  unable  to  secure  a  two-thirds 
majority  to  pass  it  over  the  executive  veto,  and  hence  it  failed. 
Several  other  measures  of  the  kind  were  passed  during  Jackson's 
term,  but  they  were  either  vetoed,  "  pocketed  "  or  returned  at  the 
next  session  unsigned.  In  his  message  of  1832  he  recommended 
the  sale  of  all  the  stocks  held  by  the  United  States  in  canals,  turn- 
pikes, and  similar  enterprises.15  The  great  difficulty  then,  as  now, 
in  determining  whether  a  projected  improvement  was  national  or 

14 "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.  i.  p.  727. 

13  Richardson.  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol.   ii.  p.  602. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  489 

1830-1832 

local  opened  the  way  for  the  application  of  the  national  funds  for 
local  purposes  with  its  resulting  abuses.  Thus  Jackson  taught  his 
party  the  evils  of  special  legislation.16 

Closely  connected  with  the  question  of  internal  improvements 
was  the  disposition  of  the  public  lands.  During  Jackson's  first 
term  a  memorable  debate  on  the  land  question  occurred  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  which  had  the  effect  of  bringing  into  promi- 
nence the  growing  sectional  divergence,  and  the  opposing  views 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  Union.  The  occasion  for  this  forensic 
display  was  the  introduction  by  Senator  Eoote  of  Connecticut,  of  a 
resolution  proposing  to  institute  an  inquiry  as  to  whether  it  was 
desirable  or  not  to  suspend  for  a  period  the  sale  of  public  lands, 
except  such  as  were  already  surveyed,  and  for  abolishing  the  office 
of  surveyor-general.  This  resolution  was  immediately  interpreted 
by  the  South  and  the  West  as  additional  evidence  of  the  traditional 
neglect  and  jealousy  of  the  East,  and  of  her  opposition  to  the  erec- 
tion of  States  in  these  regions.  It  was  the  view  of  the  new 
democracy  that  the  public  lands  should  be  given  away  to  settlers  at 
a  price  sufficient  only  to  cover  the  actual  cost  of  surveying  and 
preparation  for  sale,  and  that  by  this  means  the  West  would  be- 
come rapidly  settled  and  her  weight  in  the  Union  correspondingly 
increased.  But  the  erection  of  States  in  the  West  was  not  looked 
upon  with  favor  by  the  East,  since  it  meant  a  draining  away  of 
population,  a  shifting  of  the  balance  of  power  from  that  section 
and  a  consequent  loss  of  its  former  predominance  in  the  Union. 
Senator  Hayne  of  South  Carolina,  a  man  of  real  oratorical  gifts, 
on  January  19,  1830,  made  Foote's  resolution  the  occasion  of  a 
general  attack  upon  New  England  and  an  exposition  of  the  doctrine 
of  nullification.  He  accused  the  New  England  States  of  a  desire 
to  check  the  growth  of  other  sections,  and  charged  them  with 
pusillanimous  conduct  in  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain. 

The  speech  was  replied  to  on  the  following  day  by  Daniel 
Webster,  who  had  already  risen  to  the  position  of  the  foremost 
orator  of  the  Union.  In  this  first  speech  Wrebster  confined  his 
remarks  mainly  to  the  denial  of  the  charge  of  Eastern  hostility  to 
the  growth  of  the  West,  and  did  not  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the 
nature  of  the  Union  under  the  Constitution.  Colonel  Hayne  soon 
returned  to  the  attack  with  a  brilliant  and  lengthy  speech,  which 
the  Southern  members  loudly  applauded,  and  which  even  Webster's 

18  Sumner,  "Life  of  Jackson,"  p.    194. 


490  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1830-1832 

friends  feared  could  not  be  successfully  answered.  In  this  speech 
Hayne,  after  assailing  Webster  personally,  and  attacking  the  pa- 
triotism of  Massachusetts,  made  a  full  exposition  of  the  doctrine 
of  nullification.  After  a  night  of  careful  thought  and  preparation 
Webster  rose  to  reply,  January  26,  1830.  It  was  a  great  historical 
occasion,  the  first  notable  forensic  encounter  between  the  North 
and  the  South.  The  speech  which  Webster  delivered  on  that  day 
to  a  crowded  chamber  will  long  remain  one  of  the  most  memorable 
orations  ever  delivered  in  the  Senate,  and  is  surpassed  by  none  in 
the  annals  of  American  oratory.  Webster  himself  never  equalled 
it  in  any  subsequent  speech.17 

Hayne  had  taken  the  stand  that  the  Constitution  of  the  Union 
was  a  mere  compact  between  the  States  composing  it ;  that  the  na- 
tional government  was  the  agent  of  the  States  for  certain  specified 
purposes;  that  it  could  not  be  made  the  judge  of  the  extent  of  its 
powers,  for  that  would  leave  the  States  at  the  mercy  of  the  general 
government,  and  would  lead  to  the  destruction  of  the  federal  char- 
acter of  the  Republic.  Finally  Hayne  contended  that  the  States, 
the  real  principals,  were  the  judges  in  cases  of  deliberate  and  pal- 
pable infractions  of  the  Constitution  by  the  national  government, 
and  could  interpose  to  arrest  such  violations.  The  decision  of  this 
question  could  not  be  left  to  the  national  judiciary,  because  that 
would  be  vesting  the  agent  with  power  to  judge  of  the  extent  and 
nature  of  its  own  powers. 

In  reply  to  this  course  of  reasoning  Webster  showed  that  the 
Constitution  was  not  a  compact,  nor  the  Union  a  mere  league  dis- 
soluble at  the  will  of  the  States  composing  it,  and  that  it  was  not 
the  mere  creature  and  agent  of  the  States,  but  a  supreme  national 
government,  clothed  with  adequate  powers,  the  extent  of  which 
was  a  matter  for  the  determination  of  the  national  judiciary  and 
not  for  the  States.  He  denied  that  each  State  had  the  power  to 
interpret  the  Constitution  according  to  its  interests,  and  showed 
with  great  power  that  Hayne's  doctrine  of  nullification  would  lead 
to  the  destruction  of  the  Union,  an  object  which  the  fathers  could 
never  have  intended  to  bring  about.  The  closing  words  of  his 
oration,  "  Liberty  and  union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  insepar- 
able," are  familiar  to  every  American  schoolboy.  This  remarkable 
debate  was  the  opening  gun  in  the  long  controversy  between  the 
sections  and  made  a  profound  impression  upon  the  people  through- 

17  Lodge,  "  Life  of  Webster,"  p.    174. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  491 

1830-1832 

out  the  Union.  It  was  the  first  clear  statement  by  the  leading 
statesmen  of  the  two  sections  of  the  two  opposing  views  of  the 
nature  of  the  Union  as  it  had  developed  under  the  Constitution,18 
and  it  may  be  said  that  from  this  time  forward  the  North,  which 
had  once  wavered,  became  largely  nationalist,  while  the  South  went 
over  to  the  other  side.  It  was  thus,  in  a  way,  the  turning  point 
in  the  constitutional  development  of  the  country  from  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War. 

As  to  the  merits  of  the  question  it  has  been  well  said,  that  the 
ground  which  Webster  took  was  new  ground,  while  that  which 
Hayne  occupied  was  old  ground ;  that  Webster's  position  was  one 
toward  which  the  greater  part  of  the  nation  was  steadily  advancing, 
while  Hayne's  was  one  upon  which  the  South  was  presently  to 
stand  quite  alone.19  It  is  certainly  true  that  in  the  early  days  of 
the  Republic  Hayne's  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Union  was  quite 
generally  accepted  in  the  North  as  well  as  in  the  South;  but  by 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth  decade  of  the  century  the  North  was 
slowly  coming  over  to  the  national  view,  and  the  hastening  of  this 
change  was  the  chief  result  of  the  debate  between  Hayne  and 
Webster. 

The  theory  of  nullification  which  Hayne  had  championed  in 
the  Senate  was  soon  to  be  put  into  practice,  but  without  success,  in 
the  State  he  represented.  It  was  not  the  question  of  the  public 
lands  or  of  the  Indians  this  time,  but  the  tariff,  which  was  to  furnish 
the  occasion,  and  it  was  not  Hayne,  but  John  C.  Calhoun,  who 
was  to  be  most  conspicuous  in  the  movement  to  carry  it  into  effect. 
As  we  have  already  pointed  out  in  another  connection,  Calhoun, 
after  the  enactment  of  the  "  monstrous  "  Tariff  Act  of  1828,  pre- 
pared an  elaborate  statement  of  the  theory  of  nullification  for  the 
use  of  the  legislature  of  his  State,  which  was  officially  promulgated 
as  the  "  South  Carolina  Exposition."  20  In  this  manifesto  he 
pointed  out  the  dissimilarity  in  the  economic  interests  of  the  North 
and  South,  showed  that  the  recent  high  protective  tariff  legisla- 
tion of  Congress  was  operating  to  the  detriment  of  the  South,  since 
the  industries  of  that  section  were  primarily  agricultural  in  charac- 
ter, and  asserted  that  if  Congress  should  persist  in  its  oppressive 
and  unconstitutional  legislation  the  only  alternative  left  to  an  in- 

18  Lodge,    "Life   of   Webster,''   p.    180. 

19  Wilson,   "  Division  and  Reunion,"  p.  47. 

20  Yon  Hoist,  "Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun,"  p.  76. 


492  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1830-1832 

jured  State  was  to  interpose  a  suspensory  veto  upon  such  legisla- 
tion so  far  as  that  particular  State  was  concerned,  until  a  constitu- 
tional amendment  could  be  adopted  expressly  conferring  upon 
Congress  the  power  in  question.  Calhoun  did  not  advocate  im- 
mediate resort  to  this  method,  but  proposed  to  wait  for  a  returning 
sense  of  justice  which  it  was  believed  would  follow  the  election  of 
General  Jackson.  He  doubtless  believed  also  that  General  Jack- 
son's States  rights  sympathies  would  lead  him,  if  not  into  approval, 
at  least  into  acquiescence  in  the  schemes  of  the  nullifiers.  But  in 
this  supposition  the  nullifiers  were  doomed  to  disappointment.  At 
a  notable  Democratic  banquet  at  Washington  on  April  13,  1830, 
the  anniversary  of  Jefferson's  birth,  various  toasts  were  proposed, 
all  of  which  were  permeated  with  the  aroma  of  State  sovereignty, 
and  the  responses  were  all  that  the  nullifiers  could  wish  for  until 
the  turn  of  the  President  came.  With  his  characteristic  directness 
he  proposed  to  toast  "  Our  Federal  Union,  it  must  be  preserved."  21 
This  was  like  throwing  a  firebrand  into  the  camp  of  the  nulli- 
fiers; it  greatly  disconcerted  them,  and  convinced  them  that  in 
counting  on  the  aid  of  the  chief  executive  they  had  reckoned  with- 
out their  host.22  Although  a  strict  constructionist  in  his  constitu- 
tional law,  Jackson  had  a  high  sense  of  the  value  of  the  Union, 
and  as  its  chief  magistrate  his  duty  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  insure 
its  preservation  seemed  as  clear  as  day  to  him.  He  is  reported  to 
have  sent  word  to  his  friends  in  South  Carolina  that  if  a  drop  of 
blood  was  shed  in  that  State  in  opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States  he  would  promptly  hang  as  a  traitor  the  first  one  guilty 
of  such  conduct  upon  whom  he  could  lay  hands.  His  opposition 
to  the  nullification  movement  in  South  Carolina  was  doubtless  fur- 
ther increased  by  the  refusal  of  the  State  to  cast  its  electoral  vote 
for  him,  and  by  a  personal  breach  between  him  and  Calhoun. 
The  breach  grew  out  of  Jackson's  discovery  about  this  time  that 
Calhoun,  as  Secretary  of  War  in  Monroe's  Cabinet,  had  proposed 
to  censure  him  for  his  conduct  in  invading  Spanish  West  Florida 
during  the  Seminole  war,  whereas  Jackson  had  believed  all  along 
that  Calhoun  alone  of  the  Cabinet  members  was  his  friend  and  that 
Adams  was  his  chief  enemy,  when  in  reality  Adams,  almost  alone 
of  the  Cabinet,  had  defended  him.  Tt  was  a  principle  of  Jackson's 
ethics  that  no  man,  whether  in  his  official  or  private  character, 

21  Benton,  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  vol.  i.  p.  148. 

22  Partnn.  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  p.  286. 


J  A  C  K  S  O  N  I A  N     EPOCH  49S 

1831-1832 

should  censure  him  and  still  remain  his  friend.  No  explanation 
which  Calhoun  could  offer  was  acceptable  to  Jackson,  and  from  that 
time  forward  a  state  of  unceasing  hostility  existed  between  the  two 
men.  It  was  now  certain  that  Calhoun  could  no  longer  count 
upon  the  aid  of  the  chief  executive  in  his  proposed  nullification  of 
the  obnoxious  tariff  law.  He  thereupon  published  an  "  Address 
to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,"  under  the  date  of  July  26,  183 1, 
in  which  he  reenforced  the  arguments  of  the  "  Exposition,"  and 
again  elaborated  his  scheme  of  nullification.  Once  more  his  main 
contention  was  that  with  the  great  dissimilarity  of  interests  in  the 
country  the  only  safe  foundation  for  the  Union  lay  in  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  States,  which  enabled  each  to  defend  itself  against 
usurpations.23 

Meantime  Congress  was  again  tampering  with  the  tariff,  and 
in  July,  1832,  a  new  measure  was  passed  which  removed  the  most 
obnoxious  features  of  the  act  of  1828,  but  still  retained  the  princi- 
ple of  protection.  It  now  looked  as  if  the  majority  had  no  inten- 
tion of  abandoning  what  appeared  to  the  South  to  be  a  policy 
ruinous  to  the  interests  of  that  section ;  indeed,  there  was  reason  to 
believe  that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  permanent  part  of  the  economic 
policy  of  the  government.  In  South  Carolina,  where  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  tariff  was  the  strongest,  preparations  were  now  entered 
upon  to  free  the  State  by  extraordinary  measures  from  the  burdens 
of  an  obnoxious  law  against  which  the  people  had  petitioned  in 
vain.  This  was  to  be  accomplished  by  the  nullification  of  the  law 
in  accordance  with  the  scheme  worked  out  by  Calhoun.  Accord- 
ingly, in  October,  1832,  the  governor  called  the  legislature  to- 
gether in  extraordinary  session  and  it  promptly  issued  a  call  for  a 
State  convention  to  meet  at  Columbia  on  November  19.  On  the 
24th,  with  all  the  solemnity  befitting  the  occasion,  the  convention 
adopted  the  famous  Ordinance  of  Nullification,  declaring  the  Tariff 
Act  null  and  void  so  far  as  its  operation  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
South  Carolina  was  concerned.  It  further  forbade  the  payment  of 
all  duties  after  February  1,  1833,  on  goods  imported  into  the  State, 
prohibiting  appeals  arising  under  the  act  from  being  taken  to  the 
United  States  courts,  and  declared  that  in  the  event  of  Congress 
attempting  to  reduce  the  State  to  obedience,  South  Carolina  would 
regard  her  connection  with  the  Union  as  dissolved.  Before  ad- 
journing the  convention  issued  two  addresses,  one  to  the  people  of 

23  Von  Hoist,  "  Life  of  Calhoun,"  p.  97. 


494  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1832 

South  Carolina,  calling  upon  them  to  give  their  unqualified  obedi- 
ence to  the  ordinance,  and  one  to  the  people  of  the  other  States, 
reciting  the  reasons  which  had  impelled  South  Carolina  to  nullify 
the  law  and  justifying,  on  constitutional  grounds,  the  course  which 
the  convention  had  taken. 

The  ordinance  was  then  laid  before  the  legislature  and  that 
body  promptly  passed  the  necessary  measures  to  carry  it  into  execu- 
tion. The  first  of  them  was  an  act  allowing  consignees  of  mer- 
chandise held  for  non-payment  of  customs  to  recover  the  same  by 
a  writ  of  replevin,  besides  throwing  various  other  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  Federal  officers  who  should  attempt  to  collect  the  duties. 
Another  act  provided  for  placing  the  State  on  a  war  footing  for 
the  purpose  of  resisting  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  should 
an  attempt  be  made  to  employ  force  in  the  execution  of  the  nullified 
act.  A  final  act,  the  most  obnoxious  of  all,  provided  a  test  oath 
for  all  officers  of  the  State  as  a  means  of  excluding  Union  men 
from  holding  positions  of  honor  or  trust  under  the  State.24 

In  the  meantime  the  President  had  instructed  the  officials  at 
Charleston  to  collect  the  duties,  even  if  the  employment  of  force 
should  be  necessary,  and  to  that  end  dispatched  troops  to  Fort 
Moultrie  with  orders  to  aid  the  collector  and  defend  the  property 
of  the  United  States  at  all  hazards.  Finally,  on  December  10,  the 
President  issued  an  eloquent  proclamation  addressed  to  the  people 
of  South  Carolina,  in  which  he  declared  that  the  attempt  of  a  State 
to  nullify  a  law  of  the  United  States  was  rebellion  pure  and  simple 
and  wholly  without  constitutional  justification.  He  denied  the 
right  of  a  State  to  pass  upon  the  validity  of  a  Congressional  statute, 
and  affirmed  that  the  Federal  judiciary  had  been  created  for  the 
settlement  of  questions  of  this  character.  "  I  consider,"  he  said, 
"  the  power  to  annul  a  law  of  the  United  States  assumed  by  one 
State  incompatible  with  the  existence  of  the  Union,  contradicted 
expressly  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  unauthorized  by  its 
spirit,  inconsistent  with  every  principle  on  which  it  was  founded, 
and  destructive  of  the  great  object  for  which  it  was  formed." 
With  regard  to  his  own  duty  in  the  premises  the  President  said : 
"  The  laws  of  the  United  States  must  be  executed.  I  have  no  dis- 
cretionary power  on  the  subject  —  my  duty  is  emphatically  pro- 
nounced in  the  Constitution.     Those  who  told  you  that  you  might 

24  Burgess.  "The  Middle   Period,"  pp.  224-226;  Houston,  "Nullification  in 
South  Carolina,"  pp.  m-114. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  495 

1832 

peacefully  prevent  their  execution  deceived  you.  Their  object  is 
disunion,  and  disunion  by  armed  force  is  treason."  25  Every  line 
of  the  proclamation  rang  with  patriotism  and  good  sense,  and 
it  closed  with  a  strong  appeal  to  the  people  of  his  native  section  to 
abandon  their  opposition  to  the  Tariff  Act  and  abide  by  the  will 
of  the  majority.  "  It  reads,"  says  Parton,  "  more  like  the  last 
appeal  of  a  sorrowing  but  resolute  father  to  wayward,  misguided 
sons.  It  was  clear  in  statement,  forcible  in  argument,  vigorous  in 
style  and  glowing  with  the  fire  of  a  genuine  and  enlightened  patriot- 
ism." 26  The  firm  stand  of  the  President  was  supported  with 
great  unanimity  by  the  people  of  the  North,  and  in  later  years, 
when  the  secession  movement  was  on  the  eve  of  culmination,  Jack- 
son's course  was  pointed  to  as  one  worthy  of  emulation  by  his 
successor.  State  after  State  from  Maine  to  Mississippi  promptly 
gave  formal  expression  of  their  approval  of  the  President's  senti- 
ments, and  of  their  determination  to  support  him  in  the  exercise 
of  his  legitimate  powers.  In  the  South  there  was  naturally  more  or 
less  sympathy  with  the  nullificationists,  but  outside  the  Gulf  States 
it  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  been  enthusiastic,  and  in  some  of 
these  it  was  of  the  feeblest  sort.  In  fact,  most  of  their  State  legis- 
latures passed  resolutions  pronouncing  South  Carolina's  action  both 
unjustifiable  and  unwarranted,  and  warmly  supporting  the  Presi- 
dent and  denouncing  the  doctrine  of  nullification.27  Even  in  South 
Carolina  there  was  a  strong  Union  party  and  they  held  a  conven- 
tion at  Charleston  and  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the  action 
of  the  nullifiers. 

But  the  President's  proclamation  did  not  seem  to  have  any 
marked  effect  upon  the  course  of  the  nullifiers.  Apparently  they 
were  as  determined  in  their  course  as  the  President  was  in  his,  and 
refused  to  be  deterred  by  his  threats.  Colonel  Hayne,  the  recently 
elected  governor,  issued  a  counter-proclamation  denouncing  the  at- 
titude of  the  President,  warning  the  good  people  of  the  State 
against  his  attempt  "  to  seduce  them  from  their  allegiance,"  and 
calling  upon  them  to  stand  firm  in  their  opposition  to  the  obnoxious 
tariff  law:  and  the  legislature  of  the  State  joined  in  the  denuncia- 
tion of  Jackson  and  promised  the  governor  its  support.  At  this 
stage  of  the  conflict  Congress  met.  and  it  remained  to  see  if  that 

25  Richardson,  "  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,"  vol.  ii.  p.  652. 

26  Parton,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  p.  469. 

27  Houston,  "  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,"  p.  119. 


496  T  H  E     U  N  I  T  E  D     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1832-1833 

body  would  support  the  President  in  his  stand  and  enact  whatever 
legislation  might  be  necessary  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  ob- 
noxious law  in  South  Carolina.  To  the  delight  of  the  nullifiers 
the  first  move  was  in  the  direction  of  compromise,  for  on  December 
y,  1832,  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  brought  in  a  bill  pro- 
viding for  a  substantial  reduction  of  the  duties.  This  appeared 
to  Jackson  too  much  like  abandoning  the  fight  and  leaving  the 
authority  of  the  government  unvindicated.  Accordingly  he  sent 
a  message  to  Congress  asking  for  authority  to  use  the  army  and 
navy  for  the  enforcement  of  the  revenue  laws,  and  to  take  such 
other  steps  as  appeared  to  him  to  be  necessary  to  uphold  the  dignity 
and  authority  of  the  United  States.  A  measure  dubbed  by  its 
enemies  the  "  Force  Bill,"  was  promptly  passed,  and  approved,  on 
January  21,  1833,  giving  the  courts  of  the  United  States  jurisdic- 
tion of  cases  arising  under  the  revenue  laws,  providing  for  the 
transfer  of  suits  involving  acts  done  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States  or  rights  claimed  thereunder  from  the  State  courts 
to  the  Federal  courts,  empowering  the  President  to  alter  the  cus- 
toms districts  and  change  the  places  of  collection ;  and  authorizing 
him  to  use  the  military  and  naval  forces  to  resist  interference  with 
the  collection  of  revenues.28  The  measure  was  variously  attacked 
as  arbitrary  and  destructive  of  the  liberties  of  the  people.  It  was 
no  doubt  severe,  but  in  Jackson's  opinion  it  was  clearly  demanded 
by  the  situation. 

Meantime  the  proposal  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  to 
reduce  the  tariff  duties  was  under  discussion  in  Congress,  and  the 
result  was  the  passage  on  February  26,  1833,  of  a  compromise 
measure  conceived  by  the  pacific  mind  of  Henry  Clay.  This  act 
provided  that  all  duties  in  excess  of  twenty  per  cent,  should  be 
gradually  reduced  until  1842,  after  which  date  there  should  be 
a  uniform  rate  of  twenty  per  cent.20  This  was  acceptable  to  the 
nullifiers,  and  the  prospect  of  its  adoption  by  Congress,  together 
with  the  failure  of  other  States  to  join  South  Carolina,  had  already 
led  to  the  suspension  until  the  adjournment  of  Congress  of  the 
ordinance  which  was  to  have  gone  into  effect  February  1.  The 
suspension  was  made,  it  will  be  noted,  not  by  the  convention  which 
had  proclaimed  the  act  of  nullification,  but  by  an  unofficial  gather- 
ing of  prominent  citizens  at  Charleston,  on  January  21,  1833,  tne 

28  Burgess,   "The   Middle   Period,"   p.   233. 

-9  Taussig,   "Tariff   History  of  the    United    States,"  p.    ito. 


JACKS  ON  IAN     EPOCH  497 

1833 

very  day  of  the  passage  of  the  Force  Bill.  A  week  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  act  for  the  lowering  of  the  duties  the  convention  re- 
assembled and  formally  repealed  the  ordinance,  but  pronounced  the 
Force  Act  null  and  void  in  South  Carolina.  This  was  the  end  of 
the  controversy. 

Whether  the  national  principle  or  that  of  the  nullificationists 
had  triumphed  is  still  a  debatable  question.  The  nation  had  as- 
serted its  right  to  enforce  its  commands  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  people  of  a  particular  locality,  and  had  passed  a  Force  Bill 
as  a  means  of  overcoming  resistance,  and  that  measure  had  be- 
come a  permanent  statute.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  United 
States  had  yielded  to  the  demands  of  the  nullificationists  by  re- 
pealing the  law  which  they  had  attempted  to  nullify.  It  could  be 
said  that  a  precedent  had  been  created  by  which  any  State  which 
disapproved  of  an  act  of  Congress  might  threaten  to  resist  it  by 
nullification,  and  thus  bring  the  national  government  to  make  the 
concessions  demanded.  But  this  was  most  improbable.  The  exec- 
utive never  retreated  an  inch  from  his  position  that  nullification  in- 
volved resistance  to  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  and  had 
Congress  seen  fit  not  to  repeal  the  objectionable  tariff  law,  the 
President  would  doubtless  have  enforced  it,  though  it  would  prob- 
ably have  required  the  employment  of  arms.  Nullification,  there- 
fore, failed  to  make  good  its  claim  as  a  practicable  and  constitu- 
tional method  of  defense  against  the  national  government;  it  had, 
in  fact,  broken  down  at  every  point,  and  was  never  resorted  to 
again.  In  this  sense  there  was  a  distinct  gain  on  the  side  of  the 
national  principle  in  our  constitutional  development.  But  the  ef- 
fect of  the  controversy  was  to  alienate  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
from  the  general  government,  and  to  create  in  their  minds  a  dis- 
position to  look  to  secession  as  an  ultimate  necessity.30 

Ill 

jackson's  war  against  the  united  states  bank 

In  the  midst  of  the  excitement  over  the  nullification  contro- 
versy the  presidential  election  had  occurred  and  Jackson  had  been 
reelected  by  an  overwhelming  electoral  majority.     Jackson's  popu- 
larity had  apparently  lost  little  of  its  universality  by  reason  of  his 
30  Houston,   "  Nullification  in   South   Carolina,"  p.   137. 


498  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1833 

inauguration  of  the  spoils  system,  his  attack  upon  the  United  States 
Bank,  which  was  the  real  issue,  and  his  firm  stand  against  nulli- 
fication ;  and  consequently  his  reelection  had  been  a  foregone  con- 
clusion. But  it  was  not  allowed  to  go  uncontested.  In  the  first 
place  he  was  opposed  by  the  new  Anti-Masonic  party,  which  had 
sprung  into  existence  in  consequence  of  the  alleged  abduction  and 
murder,  by  order  of  the  Masons  in  1826,  of  one  William  Morgan, 
a  bricklayer  of  Batavia,  New  York,  charged  with  betraying  the 
secrets  of  the  Masonic  order.31  The  leading  principle  of  the  new 
party  was  hostility  to  the  Masonic  order  and  the  exclusion  of  its 
members  from  public  office.  At  first  confined  to  New  York,  the 
movement  rapidly  spread  to  a  number  of  adjoining  States.  In 
1 83 1  a  national  convention  of  this  party  —  the  first  national  con- 
vention for  the  nomination  of  a  presidential  candidate  in  the  history 
of  the  United  States  —  was  held  at  Baltimore  and  nominated  the 
noted  orator,  William  Wirt,  of  Virginia,  for  President,  and  Amos 
Ellmaker  of  Pennsylvania  for  Vice  President.  A  little  later  in  the 
same  year  a  convention,  representing  the  national  wing  of  the  Re- 
publicans, met  at  Baltimore  likewise,  and  nominated  Henry  Clay 
of  Kentucky  for  President,  and  John  Sargent  of  Pennsylvania  for 
Vice  President.32  In  the  spring  of  the  following  year  a  third  con- 
vention, representing  the  young  men  of  the  country,  was  held  at 
Washington  to  endorse  the  nomination  of  Clay. 

The  followers  of  Jackson,  who  were  now  beginning  to  be 
called  the  Democratic  party,  also  held  their  national  convention  at 
Baltimore,  and  with  practical  unanimity  renominated  the  general. 
On  account  of  his  quarrel  with  Calhoun,  and  the  latter's  activity  in 
the  nullification  movement,  it  was  decided  not  to  renominate  Cal- 
houn for  Vice  President.  Jackson's  choice  was  Martin  Van  Buren, 
of  New  York,  the  leader  of  the  Democrats  in  that  State,  and  a 
successful  politician  of  the  true  Jacksonian  type.  He  had  been 
nominated  by  Jackson  as  minister  to  England,  but  was  rejected  by 
the  Senate  and  was  forced  to  undergo  the  humiliation  of  returning 
home  discredited  and  dishonored.  Jackson  therefore  demanded 
the  nomination  of  Van  Buren  as  a  personal  endorsement  of  him- 
self, believing  that  it  would  be  a  case  of  poetic  justice  to  call  Van 
Buren  to  the  presidency  of  the  body  which  had  thought  him  un- 
worthy to  represent  the  United  States  at  the  Court  of  St.  James. 

31  Hammond,  •"  Political  History  of  New  York,"  vol.  ii.  p.  376. 
32  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  255. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  499 

1833 

Van  Buren  had  almost  alone  of  the  original  Cabinet  retained  the 
confidence  of  Jackson. 

Before  the  administration  had  advanced  very  far  a  disruption 
of  the  Cabinet  took  place  in  consequence  of  the  refusal  of  the  wives 
of  the  heads  of  departments  to  recognize  socially  the  wife  of  the 
Secretary  of  War,  Eaton.  Tales  affecting  her  character  had  been 
circulated,  and  Jackson,  believing  in  her  innocence,  and  remem- 
bering that  the  good  name  of  his  own  wife  had  suffered  from  the 
aspersions  of  certain  newspapers,  gallantly  made  her  cause  his  own, 
and  sent  out  an  order  that  Mrs.  Eaton  must  receive  the  social 
recognition  from  the  other  Cabinet  women  to  which  her  position 
entitled  her.  But  the  ladies  refused  to  obey;  whereupon  Jackson 
ordered  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  who  had  wives  to  coerce  them 
into  obedience.  Refusing  to  comply  with  the  President's  wishes, 
they  were  asked  to  resign,  and  they  all  did  so.  Throughout  the 
whole  controversy  Van  Buren,  a  widower,  accorded  due  social 
recognition  to  the  wife  of  the  President's  life-time  friend  and  coun- 
sellor, and  thereby  retained  his  full  confidence  and  respect.33  Van 
Buren  was  nominated  for  Vice  President,  but  with  less  unanimity 
than  was  Jackson. 

While  many  of  the  voters  did  not  approve  of  Jackson's  meas- 
ures, most  of  them  admired  his  staunch  patriotism  and  firm- 
ness of  purpose,  believing  that  his  motives  were  always  good  and 
that  whatever  errors  he  had  made  were  due  to  mistaken  views  of 
policy  or  to  bad  advice.  He  was,  moreover,  the  representative  of 
the  new  democracy,  with  its  exaggerated  conception  of  the  rights 
and  capacity  of  the  people,  which  could  not  be  said  of  the  opposition 
candidates.  The  success  of  the  administration  candidates  was, 
therefore,  insured  from  the  first.  "  My  opinion  is,"  said  William 
Wirt,  "  that  Jackson  may  be  President  for  life  if  he  chooses."  34 
The  electoral  vote  stood,  Jackson,  219;  Clay,  49;  Wirt,  7.  South 
Carolina  and  Kentucky  alone  of  the  Southern  States  repudiated 
Jackson,  the  South  Carolina  votes  being  thrown  away  upon  John 
Floyd,  of  Virginia;  those  of  Kentucky  going  to  Clay.  Vermont 
alone  was  carried  by  the  Anti-Masons.  Pennsylvania  refused  to 
support  Van  Buren  and  threw  away  her  votes  for  Vice  President 
on  one  of  the  United  States  senators  from  that  State.35 

33  Parton,   "  Life   of  Jackson,"   vol.   ii.  p.   287. 

34  Ibid.,  vol.  iii.  p.  432. 

35  Stanwood,  "  History  of  the  Presidency,"  p.   164. 


500  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1833 

Jackson  was  quick  to  interpret  the  results  of  the  election  as  an 
endorsement  of  his  policy  in  every  respect  and  as  giving  him  carte 
blanche  from  the  people  to  proceed  with  the  measures  which  he  had 
begun.  Had  he  reflected,  however,  upon  the  proportion  of  the 
popular  vote  which  he  received,  his  opinion  of  the  popular  approba- 
tion must  have  been  weakened.  The  fact  is,  the  aggregate  popular 
vote  received  by  him  was  less  than  in  1828,  and  many  of  the  States 
whose  electoral  votes  were  counted  for  him  were  carried  by  small 
majorities.  It  is  by  no  means  improbable  that,  had  the  opposition 
united  on  a  strong  candidate,  he  might  have  defeated  Jackson  in  the 
electoral  college. 

Jackson's  second  term  began  in  a  political  calm,  but  ended  in 
a  tempest.  The  greater  part  of  it  was  taken  up  with  the  contro- 
versy over  the  United  States  Bank,  an  issue  which  overshadowed 
all  others.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  second  bank  had  been 
chartered  in  18 16  by  a  Democratic  Congress  for  a  term  of  twenty 
years,  and  hence  its  charter  would  expire  in  1836.  For  reasons 
partly  personal  and  partly  for  reasons  of  state,  Jackson  had  formed 
an  unfavorable  opinion  of  the  bank,  and  his  opinion  soon  ripened 
into  hostility.  In  his  first  message  to  Congress  in  1829,  seven 
years  before  the  expiration  of  its  charter,  he  expressed  the  opinion, 
which,  he  said,  must  be  admitted  by  all,  that  the  bank  had  failed  in 
the  great  end  of  establishing  a  uniform  and  sound  currency,  and 
asserted  that  the  constitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  law  creat- 
ing the  bank  were  questioned  by  a  large  portion  of  "  our  fellow 
citizens."  The  President  further  stated  that  he  was  moved  to  call 
the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  question  of  the  renewal  of  the 
charter  in  order  to  avoid  the  "  evils  resulting  from  precipitancy," 
and  suggested  that  a  national  bank,  founded  upon  the  credit  of  the 
government  and  its  revenues,  might  be  devised,  which  would  avoid 
the  constitutional  objections  raised,  and  at  the  same  time  secure 
all  the  advantages  to  the  government  which  were  expected  to  result 
from  the  old  bank.30 

Jackson  also  charged  that  the  bank  had  used  its  influence  in  the 
recent  election  to  defeat  him,  and  this  was  no  doubt  the  chief  cause 
of  his  hostility.  As  no  intimation  had  been  given  by  the  stock- 
holders that  application  would  be  made  during  Jackson's  term  for 
a  renewal  of  the  charter,  and  as  the  charter  still  had  seven  years 
to  run,  considerable  surprise  was  expressed  that  the  President 
;!,;  "  Statesman's  Manual,'*  vol.  ii.  p.  713. 


JACKSON  IAN     EPOCH  501 

1833 

should  have  adverted  to  the  subject  at  that  time.  Moreover,  it  was 
news  to  most  of  the  people  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank 
was  generally  questioned,  and  that  it  had  failed  to  supply  a  sound 
currency.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided 
in  at  least  two  cases,  one  of  them  being  the  famous  case  of  Mc- 
Culloch  v.  Maryland,  that  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank  was 
beyond  question,  while  the  currency  issued  by  it  was  accepted 
equally  with  gold  in  every  money  center  in  the  world.  But  it 
was  a  part  of  Jackson's  constitutional  law  that  the  opinions  of 
the  judiciary  had  no  binding  force  upon  the  other  departments  of 
the  government,  and  consequently  the  decision  in  the  McCulloch 
case  did  not,  in  his  opinion,  conclusively  settle  the  question.  The 
charge  as  to  the  unsoundness  of  the  bank,  along  with  other  charges 
regarding  mismanagement,  favoritism,  interference  in  elections, 
etc.,  were  investigated  by  two  congressional  committees  and  both 
reported  that  the  charges  were  without  foundation. 

But  this  did  not  convince  Jackson  nor  deter  him  from  his  at- 
tacks upon  the  bank.  They  were,  in  fact,  renewed  each  year  in 
his  message  to  Congress,  and  with  increased  hostility.  A  line 
of  argument  which  had  powerful  influence  in  determining  the 
attitude  of  the  voters  was  Jackson's  assertion  that  the  bank  was  an 
"  un-American  monopoly,"  and  that  its  special  privileges  were  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  republican  institutions.  In  the  rapidly  de- 
veloping West,  where  extreme  democracy  had  its  stronghold,  more 
or  less  jealousy  of  the  "  Eastern  money  power  "  was  naturally  felt, 
and  it  was  easy  for  a  popular  hero  like  General  Jackson  to  turn 
that  jealousy  into  hostility  against  an  Eastern  institution  so  highly 
endowed  with  privileges  as  was  the  United  States  Bank.  The 
faith  which  the  Democracy  had  in  him  made  it  certain  that  if  the 
fate  of  the  bank  were  to  depend  upon  a  plebiscite,  its  existence 
was  doomed.  Jackson  believed  that  the  Democracy  was  with  him 
in  this  opposition  to  the  bank,  and  after  vainly  appealing  to  Con- 
gress year  after  year  to  take  action,  he  informed  that  body,  in  his 
message  of  December  6,  1831,  that  he  had  conscientiously  dis- 
charged his  duty  in  regard  to  the  matter  and  would,  therefore,  leave 
the  question  to  the  "  investigation  of  an  enlightened  people  and  their 
representatives."  37  He  meant  by  this  that  the  people  at  the  ap- 
proaching Presidential  election  would  be  asked  to  pass  upon  the 
question  of  recharter. 

7 "  Statesman's    Manual,"    vol.    ii.    p.    765. 


502  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1833 

Jackson's  opponents,  relying  upon  the  great  services  of  the 
bank  to  the  government,  accepted  the  challenge,  and  early  in  1832 
the  bank  presented  to  the  Senate  a  petition  for  recharter.  The 
petition  was  made  the  occasion  of  a  severe  attack  upon  the  bank  by 
Senator  Benton,  one  of  Jackson's  lieutenants,  who  charged  that  the 
bank  officials  had  been  guilty  of  illegal  practices.38  In  spite  of  the 
opposition  the  bill  for  renewal  passed  the  Senate  on  June  11,  after 
prolonged  discussion,  by  a  vote  of  28  to  20.  In  the  House 
strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  bill, 
but  it  finally  passed  that  body  on  June  30  by  a  vote  of  107  to 
85,  and  was  sent  to  the  President  for  his  approval  on  July  4. 
On  July  10  he  sent  in  a  message  stating  that  he  had  vetoed  the  bill, 
mainly  on  the  ground,  ( 1 )  that  some  eight  millions  of  the  stock 
of  the  bank  was  held  by  foreigners,  which  he  thought  was  a  source 
of  national  danger  to  the  Republic;  (2)  that  the  bank  was  operating 
to  make  the  West  tributary  to  the  East;  (3)  that  it  was  a 
monopoly  in  the  enjoyment  of  special  privileges,  for  which  an  in- 
adequate sum  was  paid;  and  (4)  that  the  bank  was  improperly 
constituted  and  vested  with  powers  unduly  large.39 

The  message  has  been  described  as  one  mainly  devoted  to 
proving  that  the  bank  was  an  "  unnecessary,  useless,  expensive,  un- 
American  monopoly,  always  hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  people 
and  possibly  dangerous  to  the  government  as  well."  After  the 
reading  of  the  message  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Webster  moved  the 
passage  of  the  bill  over  Jackson's  veto,  but  the  friends  of  the  bank 
were  unable  to  muster  the  necessary  two-thirds,  and  hence  the  bill 
was  lost.  The  veto  message  was,  in  some  respects,  an  able  docu- 
ment, but  it  contained  a  good  deal  of  sophistry.  It  was  extensively 
circulated  throughout  the  Union  and  had  a  decisive  influence  on 
the  public  mind  in  many  communities  where  the  bank  was  but  little 
known.  In  other  localities,  like  Philadelphia,  where  the  services 
of  the  bank  were  better  understood  and  appreciated,  large  meetings 
were  held  and  resolutions  adopted  condemning  the  action  of  the 
President. 

At  this  stage  of  the  controversy  the  Presidential  election  oc- 
curred, and  the  people  pronounced  their  verdict  by  the  reelection  of 
Jackson  by  a  large  electoral  majority,  which,  as  already  said,  he 
promptly  construed  as  a  commission  from  the  electorate  to  proceed 

38  See  Benton,  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  vol.  i.  pp.  191,  221. 
30  "  Statesman's  Manna!,"  vol.  ii.  p.  767. 


JACKSON  IAN     EPOCH  503 

1833 

with  the  work  of  putting  an  end  to  the  bank.  Its  fate  was  now 
sealed,  so  far  as  the  power  of  the  executive  could  make  it  so. 
The  next  move  of  the  President  was  to  deprive  the  bank  of  the  pub- 
lic deposits,  for  the  use  of  which  it  had  acted  as  the  fiscal  agent 
of  the  government.  By  the  act  creating  the  bank  the  public  moneys, 
however,  could  be  removed  only  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  he  was  required  to  lay  his  reasons  before  Congress 
immediately  after  taking  such  action.  Jackson  had  already  urged 
Congress  to  authorize  the  removal  of  the  deposits,  but  that  body 
refused  to  give  the  order,  saying  that  they  were  safe  in  the  bank. 
He  now  resolved  to  direct  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  make 
the  removal,  and  Mr.  McLane,  the  secretary,  being  known  to  be 
opposed  to  such  a  course,  was  transferred  to  the  State  Department, 
and  William  J.  Duane,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  appointed  as  his  suc- 
cessor. But  to  the  President's  surprise  Mr.  Duane  refused  to  make 
the  removal,  on  the  ground  of  insufficient  reason,  and  protested 
strongly  against  the  policy  of  removal.  The  President  then  asked 
him  to  resign  and  make  way  for  one  who  would  carry  out  his 
orders.  This  he  refused  to  do;  whereupon  Jackson  dismissed  him 
from  office  and  appointed  the  Attorney  General,  Roger  B.  Taney, 
of  Maryland,  as  his  successor.40  The  President  had  already  in- 
formed the  Cabinet  in  September  that  he  had  determined  upon  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  that  he  would  assume  the  responsibility 
himself,  and  had  fixed  upon  October  i,  1833,  as  the  date  for  the 
removal.  The  new  Secretary  promptly  obeyed  the  orders  of  the 
President,  and  on  the  day  appointed  issued  an  order  directing  that 
the  public  moneys  in  the  bank,  amounting  to  $9,868,435,  should  be 
gradually  drawn  out  to  meet  the  current  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  that  no  more  should  be  deposited.  Within  a  period  of 
nine  months  the  government  deposits  had  all  been  withdrawn, 
making  so  severe  a  drain  upon  the  bank  that  it  was  compelled  to 
call  in  its  loans  in  order  to  be  able  to  withstand  the  strain. 

Nor  was  the  bank  itself  the  only  one  affected ;  commercial  dis- 
tress was  widespread,  private  credit  was  unfavorably  affected,  and 
business  derangement  amounting  almost  to  a  panic  immediately  fol- 
lowed.41 The  excitement  throughout  the  country  was  intense,  and 
delegations  representing  various  private  and  public  bodies  waited 
on  the  President  and  begged  that  he  would  recommend  some  meas- 

40  Parton,   "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.    Hi.   p.    517. 

41  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  304. 


504  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1E33-1836 

lire  of  relief.  To  all  these,  however,  Jackson  replied  that  the 
distress  was  due  to  the  action  of  the  bank  and  not  to  any  action  of 
the  government,  and  that  the  government  could  afford  no  relief. 
Petitions  of  this  character  poured  into  both  houses  of  Congress  and 
were  favorably  received  in  the  Senate,  where  the  opposition  was 
in  the  majority;  but  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  Jack- 
son's friends  were  in  the  ascendency,  they  met  with  little  favor. 
The  President  informed  Congress,  in  December,  of  his  action,  and 
gave  the  reasons  therefor ;  saying  that  he  had  indisputable  evidence 
that  the  bank  had  interfered  in  politics  and  had  spent  money  to 
secure  his  defeat  at  the  last  election.42  His  explanation  was  satis- 
factory to  the  House,  but  not  to  the  Senate.  The  latter  body,  upon 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Clay,  adopted  a  resolution  censuring  the  Presi- 
dent for  his  action  in  removing  the  deposits  and  declared  that  he 
had  "  assumed  authority  and  power  not  conferred  by  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws,  but  in  derogation  of  both."  43 

Jackson  refused  to  allow  the  censure  to  go  unchallenged  and 
sent  to  the  Senate  an  elaborate  protest  against  the  right  of  that 
body  to  censure  the  action  of  a  coordinate  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  demanded  that  it  be  placed  upon  the  records  of  the 
Senate.  It  was  an  able  State  paper,  and  with  the  bank  veto  mes- 
sage contains  a  full  exposition  of  the  Jacksonian  theory  of  govern- 
ment.44 But  it  did  not  convince  the  Senate,  and  by  a  substantial 
majority  it  was  refused  a  place  on  the  records.  The  Senate  fur- 
thermore adopted  two  joint  resolutions  declaring  that  the  reasons 
given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  the  removal  of  the 
deposits  were  insufficient,  and  demanding  that  the  public  moneys 
be  deposited  in  the  United  States  Bank ;  but  the  House  rejected  both 
resolutions  by  a  small  majority.  By  a  somewhat  larger  majority  it 
adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that  the  bank  ought  not  to  be  re- 
chartered.  The  fate  of  the  bank  was  now  regarded  as  settled,  and 
its  friends  abandoned  all  further  hope  of  obtaining  a  new  charter. 
Upon  the  expiration  of  the  old  charter  in  1836  it  took  out  a  charter 
from  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania  and  continued  as  a  State 
bank  with  a  capital  of  thirty-five  million  dollars. 

After  the  withdrawal  of  the  government  deposits  from  the 
United  States  Bank  the  public  moneys  were  deposited  in  certain 

42 "  Statesman's   Manual,"  vol.   ii.   p.  787. 
4:!  Parton,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  p.  541. 
**"  Statesman's    Manual,"   vol.   ii.  p.  843. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  505 

1833-1837 

State  banks,  carefully  selected  with  reference  to  party  allegiance, 
and  in  the  language  of  the  day  known  as  "  pet  banks."  In  order 
to  obtain  a  share  of  the  government  funds,  large  numbers  of  such 
institutions,  many  of  them  of  a  "  mushroom  "  character,  sprang 
up  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  especially  in  the  South  and  West. 
As  Whig  banks  were  not  in  good  standing  with  the  administration, 
and  not  likely  therefore  to  get  a  share  of  the  public  deposits,  the 
new  ones  were  mostly  of  the  Democratic  faith.  Many  of  them  is- 
sued circulating  notes  on  fictitious  capital,  were  poorly  managed,  and 
some  disappeared  as  suddenly  as  they  had  come  into  existence, 
carrying  with  them  government  deposits  and  all. 

The  effect  of  distributing  public  moneys  in  large  quantities 
throughout  the  West  led  to  speculation,  both  legitimate  and  illegiti- 
mate, resulting  in  a  general  demoralization  of  business  and  involv- 
ing disastrously  many  individuals  and  corporations.45  This  effect 
was  heightened  by  an  act  of  Congress  passed  in  June,  1836,  pro- 
viding that  the  surplus  revenues  above  $5,000,000  (the  amount  was 
about  $40,000,000)  should  be  deposited  with  the  State  govern- 
ments in  proportion  to  the  representation  of  the  States  in  Congress. 
Three  quarterly  installments,  aggregating  $28,000,000,  were  duly 
distributed,  but  by  reason  of  the  panic  the  fourth  installment  was 
not;  in  fact  it  had  been  swallowed  up  in  the  crash  which  followed. 
The  amounts  distributed  among  the  States  were  declared  to  be  of 
the  nature  of  loans,  but  it  was  understood  that  they  were  not  to  be 
repaid.  "  They  were,"  said  Colonel  Benton,  "  in  name,  a  deposit; 
in  form,  a  loan;  in  essence  and  design,  a  distribution."  4G 

Finally,  the  derangement  of  business  was  further  increased  by 
the  issue  of  the  "  specie  circular  "  in  July,  1836,  directing  the  re- 
ceivers of  public  moneys  to  accept  nothing  but  gold  and  silver  in 
payment  of  the  public  lands.  This  step  was  taken  by  the  Treasury 
Department  upon  the  direction  of  the  President  in  consequence  of 
a  flood  of  State  bank  paper,  much  of  it  issued  by  irresponsible 
banking  concerns,  all  of  it  depreciated,  which  was  pouring  into  the 
Treasury  as  a  result  of  the  rapid  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  West. 
Land  speculators  would  organize  a  "  bank  "  on  Democratic  lines, 
then  secure  a  share  of  the  government  deposits,  issue  notes,  borrow 
them  and  buy  land;  the  notes  were  deposited,  borrowed  again, 
and  so  on  indefinitely.47     The  President  was  alarmed  at  this  condi- 

45  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  323. 

46  Benton,  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  vol.  i.  p.  556. 

47  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  335. 


506  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1833-1837 

tion  of  affairs  and  determined,  against  the  advice  of  his  Cabinet, 
that  the  government  must  require  payment  in  specie.  But  as  there 
were  few  or  no  specie  paying  banks,  particularly  in  the  West,  a 
severe  drain  on  the  Eastern  banks  was  necessary ;  they  were  unable 
to  withstand  the  strain.,  a  business  crash  followed,  and  one  of  the 
worst  financial  panics  the  country  has  even  known  set  in.  As  in  the 
case  of  the  removal  of  deposits,  Jackson  assumed  the  entire  re- 
sponsibility for  the  order,  and  when  petitions  poured  in  upon  him 
from  all  parts  of  the  country,  begging  that  the  order  be  rescinded, 
he  firmly  refused  to  yield,  and  finally  announced  that  he  would  not 
move  a  hair's  breadth,  even  if  a  petition  were  presented  containing 
the  names  of  all  the  people  in  the  land,  including  those  on  the 
gravestones.  But  the  order  had  one  salutary  effect;  it  checked 
the  tide  of  reckless  speculation  in  public  lands.  A  few  days  before 
the  expiration  of  Jackson's  term  Congress  passed  a  bill  annulling  the 
specie  circular,  but  Jackson  "  pocketed  "  it  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  "  obscure." 

Another  important  financial  measure  of  Jackson's  adminis- 
tration was  an  act  of  Congress  passed  in  1834.  changing  the  mint 
ratio  between  gold  and  silver  from  15  to  1  to  16  to  1.  Shortly 
after  the  enactment  of  the  law  of  1792,  fixing  the  ratio  at  15  to  1,  it 
was  found  that  gold  had  been  undervalued ;  that  is,  in  the  markets 
of  the  world  an  ounce  of  gold  was  worth  more  than  fifteen  ounces 
of  silver,  and  consequently  the  more  valuable  metal  disappeared 
from  circulation,  either  to  be  melted  or  exported.  Gold  being 
worth  more  as  bullion  than  as  coin,  it  was  found  unprofitable  to 
coin  it,  but  profitable  to  purchase  silver  and  coin  that,  the  amount 
of  the  profit  being  the  difference  between  the  mint  and  the  market 
ratio.  Instead  of  a  double  standard,  therefore,  we  had  only  a 
single  standard,  and  that  of  silver.  The  act  of  1834  changed  the 
mint  ratio  so  as  to  make  it  correspond  with  the  market  ratio,  but 
as  the  market  ratio  was  a  matter  of  supply  and  demand,  the  in- 
creased supply  of  gold,  in  consequence  of  the  California  discovery, 
soon  disturbed  the  ratio  and  made  another  adjustment  necessary.48 

The  domestic  tranquillity  of  Jackson's  administration  was  dis- 
turbed by  two  Indian  wars,  one  in  the  Northwest  in  1833,  against 
the  Sac  and  Fox  tribes ;  the  other  in  Florida,  against  the  Seminoles 
in  1835.     The  former  is  commonly  called  the  Black  Hawk  War, 

48  Laughlin,  "  Elements  of  Political   Economy,"  p.  308. 


J  A  C  K  S  O  N  I A  N     EPOCH  507 

1833-1837 

from  the  name  of  the  chief  who  stirred  up  the  Indians  to  rebellion. 
After  a  brief  campaign  Black  Hawk  was  captured  and  taken  on 
a  tour  through  the  large  cities  of  the  East  in  order  to  impress  him 
with  the  power  and  greatness  of  the  United  States.  The  second 
Seminole  War  grew  out  of  the  attempt  of  the  President  to  remove 
these  Indians  to  the  Territory  set  apart  for  them  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi River.  Under  their  chief,  Osceola,  they  rose  in  rebellion, 
committed  various  depredations  and  atrocities,  and  afterward  re- 
treated to  the  Everglades,  where  they  were  reached  by  the  American 
troops  with  the  greatest  difficulty.  It  was  not  until  after  Jackson's 
retirement  that  the  rebellious  Indians  were  brought  to  terms. 

In  some  directions  Jackson's  administration  was  an  unqualified 
success.  This  was  especially  true  of  the  conduct  of  foreign  re- 
lations, notably  with  Great  Britain  concerning  the  West  India  trade, 
and  with  France  concerning  the  payment  of  claims,  amounting 
to  some  $5,000,000,  for  depredations  upon  American  commerce 
during  the  Napoleonic  wars.  Ever  since  the  Revolution  Great 
Britain  had  imposed  vexatious  restrictions  upon  American  trade 
with  the  British  West  Indies.  Negotiations  running  through  a 
long  period  had  been  undertaken  for  the  removal  of  the  restrictions, 
but  nothing  had  resulted  from  the  efforts.  Jackson  was  greatly 
impressed  with  the  importance  to  the  United  States  of  the  West 
India  trade,  and  informed  the  British  Government  that  the  United 
States  was  ready  to  treat  on  the  basis  of  reciprocal  privileges,  and 
the  offer  was  accepted.  The  result  was  an  agreement  by  which 
both  governments  repealed  the  restrictions  upon  their  colonial  car- 
rying trade,  and  the  West  India  commerce  was  thrown  open  to 
the  United  States,  while  the  ports  of  the  United  States  were 
thrown  open  to  the  British  colonies.  As  for  the  spoliation  claims 
against  France,  Jackson  pressed  for  a  settlement  with  his  charac- 
teristic energy  and  directness.  In  183 1  a  convention  was  concluded 
by  which  France  agreed  to  pay  to  the  United  States  $5,000,000  in 
satisfaction  of  the  said  claims,  and  each  high  contracting  party 
was  to  admit  to  its  ports  certain  products  of  the  other  on  favorable 
terms.  The  United  States  Congress  promptly  passed  the  law  neces- 
sary to  carry  the  treaty  into  effect,  but  the  French  Chambers  neg- 
lected to  make  the  appropriation  called  for  in  the  treaty  stipula- 
tion.49 Finally,  after  waiting  more  than  three  years,  Jackson  lost 
patience  and  sent  a  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1834,  sug- 

49  Foster,   "  Century  of  American    Diplomacy,"  p.   279. 


508  T  H  E     U  N  I  T  E  D     S  T  A  T  E  S 

1833-1837 

gesting  the  expediency  of  making  reprisals  upon  French  commerce. 
The  message  caused  great  excitement  in  France.  French  journals 
talked  of  war,  and  the  king  recalled  his  minister  from  the  United 
States.  But  in  April,  1835,  the  French  Chambers  passed  the  ap- 
propriation with  the  condition  that  no  money  should  be  paid  until 
"  satisfactory  explanations  "  of  the  President's  message  should  be 
received.  This  condition  the  American  Government  refused  to 
comply  with,  and  recalled  its  minister  from  Paris.  Thus  matters 
stood  until  early  in  1836,  when  the  English  Government  interposed 
its  good  offices  and  brought  about  a  friendly  understanding  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  France.  The  money  was  then 
promptly  paid  to  the  American  Government.50  Besides  the  conven- 
tions with  France  and  Great  Britain,  a  number  of  commercial 
treaties  were  concluded  with  other  countries. 

One  of  Jackson's  last  victories,  one  for  which  his  friends  had 
labored  both  in  and  out  of  season,  was  the  passage  of  a  resolution 
by  the  Senate  expunging  from  the  journal  the  censure  which  that 
body  had  passed  against  him  in  1834  for  the  removal  of  the  deposits. 
The  general  gave  an  elaborate  dinner  to  those  who  voted  for  the 
resolution,  and  to  the  end  of  his  life  held  in  the  highest  esteem  the 
"  expungers,"  as  they  were  called.  Having  issued  a  farewell  ad- 
dress to  his  countrymen,  summing  up  his  political  principles,  and 
warning  the  people  against  possible  dangers  as  he  foresaw  them, 
in  imitation  of  Washington,  Jackson  retired  to  private  life  at  the 
Hermitage,  near  Nashville,  where  he  spent  the  few  remaining  years 
of  his  life. 

The  eight  years  of  Jackson's  Presidency  formed  an  era  of  tre- 
mendous industrial  development,  of  social  transition,  and  of  great 
political  change,  marked  by  continuous  agitation  and  excitement  of 
the  public  mind.51  The  influence  of  his  administration  upon  the 
country  was  probably  unsurpassed  by  that  of  any  of  his  prede- 
cessors. But  historians  are  still  divided  in  opinion  whether  the  sum 
of  it  was  for  good  or  evil.  In  favor  of  its  beneficial  influence  may 
be  mentioned  the  firm  and  decided  stand  which  he  took  in  the 
conduct  of  the  foreign  relations  and  in  regard  to  nullification,  the 
positive  and  energetic  character  of  his  policies,  the  extinguishment 
of  the  national  debt,  the  concentration  of  public  attention  upon  a 

r,°  Sumner,    "Life    of   Jackson,"    p.    34.8;    Parton,    "Life    of   Jackson,"    vol. 
iii.  ch.  xl. 

51  "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.   ii.  p.    1406. 


J  A  C  K  S  O  N  I  A  N     EPOCH  509 

1837 

specie  currency,  the  settlement  of  the  Indian  question,  and  the  check 
which  he  gave  to  speculation  and  extravagance  through  his  opposi- 
tion to  internal  improvements  and  inflated  currency.  On  the  other 
hand,  General  Jackson's  critics  contend  that  he  is  entitled  to  no 
credit  for  the  liquidation  of  the  public  debt,  as  that  rather  belongs 
to  his  predecessors,  who  had  adopted  the  policy  of  gradually  re- 
ducing it,  while  the  inauguration  of  the  spoils  system  was  enough 
to  counteract  every  good  feature  of  the  administration.  Besides, 
there  was  the  President's  arbitrary  conduct,  particularly  with  re- 
gard to  the  finances,  which  showed,  or  which  seemed  to  show,  a 
disregard  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  with  its  consequent 
evil  influence  as  a  precedent.  His  disposition  to  ignore  constitu- 
tional restraints  probably  contributed  something  to  the  development 
of  the  spirit  of  lawlessness,  although  its  share  in  this  respect  has 
perhaps  been  exaggerated  by  some  historians.  When  all  is  said 
that  may  be  said  against  Jackson's  administration,  it  is  still  clear 
that  in  point  of  vigor,  economy  and  preservation  of  the  national 
honor  and  dignity  abroad  it  deserves  a  favorable  verdict. 

IV 

MARTIN   VAN   BUREN 

Of  the  many  personal  victories  which  came  to  Jackson  in  the 
last  years  of  his  administration,  none  gave  him  such  unalloyed 
pleasure  as  the  choice  of  Van  Buren  to  be  his  successor.  Van 
Buren  had  been  a  faithful  supporter  in  every  issue  which  had  been 
raised  during  the  eight  years  of  Jackson's  rule.  The  rejection  by 
the  Senate  of  his  nomination  as  minister  to  England  Jackson  in- 
terpreted as  a  personal  rebuke  to  himself.  Of  all  the  politicians 
who  had  served  him  there  was  none  to  whom  he  desired  so  much  to 
bequeath  the  Presidency  as  to  the  "  little  magician  "  of  New  York. 
With  his  enormous  influence,  therefore,  he  easily  procured  Van 
Buren's  unanimous  nomination  by  the  party  which  he  had  himself 
built  up  and  ruled  with  a  master  hand  for  eight  years.  The  con- 
vention that  nominated  Van  Buren  —  the  second  national  conven- 
tion of  the  party  —  met  in  an  old  Presbyterian  church  at  Baltimore, 
in  June,  1835,  nearly  a  year  and  a  half  before  the  election.  There 
were  present  over  500  delegates  from  twenty-three  States,  South 
Carolina,  Alabama  and  Illinois  not  being  represented.     The  rule 


510  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1837 

requiring  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  for  a  nomination 
was  adopted,  because  "  it  would  have  a  more  imposing  effect,"  al- 
though nearly  half  the  convention  did  not  believe  such  a  rule  was 
in  conformity  with  good  Democratic  principles.52  Richard  M. 
Johnson  of  Kentucky  was  nominated  for  the  Vice  Presidency 
against  the  strong  protests  of  the  Virginia  delegates,  who  an- 
nounced that  they  would  not  support  Johnson.  No  platform  was 
adopted,  but  a  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  an  address  to  the 
people. 

The  opposition,  now  called  Whigs  in  imitation  of  the  English 
party  of  the  same  name,  and,  like  it,  founded  on  hostility  to 
executive  prerogative,  put  forward  General  William  Henry  Harri- 
son of  Indiana.  Judge  Hugh  L.  White,  of  Tennessee,  was  nomi- 
nated by  the  legislatures  of  Alabama,  Illinois  and  Tennessee,  and 
was  supported  by  some  of  the  Southern  Whigs.  A  disorderly  cam- 
paign now  ensued.  In  response  to  a  request  from  an  obscure  West- 
ern voter,  the  three  candidates  wrote  letters  defining  their  positions 
on  the  important  questions  of  the  day.  Van  Buren's  letter  was 
skillfully  worded,  evasive,  non-committal;  altogether  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  letters  ever  written  by  a  Presidential  candidate. 
The  party  discipline  which  Jackson  had  organized  was  effective  and 
Van  Buren  was  elected,  but  with  a  majority  far  less  than  that  of 
his  master  and  predecessor,  for  he  received  170  electoral  votes,  as 
against  124  for  his  opponents,  making  a  majority  of  but  46; 
whereas  Jackson  had  been  elected  four  years  previously  by  a  ma- 
jority of  159  electoral  votes.  Van  Buren's  popular  majority  was 
only  about  25,000,  as  against  Jackson's  majority  of  157,000  at  the 
last  election.53  Massachusetts  cast  her  vote  for  Daniel  Webster, 
while  South  Carolina  gave  hers  to  Willie  P.  Mangum,  of  North 
Carolina.  Georgia  and  Tennessee,  which  had  voted  almost  unani- 
mously for  Jackson  at  the  last  election,  now  went  for  White,  while 
Mississippi  and  Louisiana  gave  Van  Buren  majorities  of  but  three 
hundred  each.  Thus  Van  Buren  came  to  the  Presidency  supported 
by  the  great  Middle  States  and  New  England,  against  the  West, 
with  the  South  divided.  Omitting  the  uncontested  election  of 
Monroe  in  1820,  he  was  the  first  candidate  for  the  Presidency  who 
had  carried  New  England  since  1804.  Richard  M.  Johnson,  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  Vice  President,  lacked  one  vote  of  receiv- 

52  Shepard,  "  Life  of  Martin  Van   Buren,"  p.  222. 
53 "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.   iii.   p.    1024. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  511 

1837 

ing  the  electoral  majority  required,  in  consequence  of  the  refusal  of 
many  Southern  electors  on  the  Democratic  ticket  to  vote  for  him, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  the  election  devolved  upon 
the  Senate.  Johnson  was  promptly  chosen,  receiving  thirty-three 
votes,  as  against  sixteen  for  Francis  Granger,  the  Whig  candidate. 

The  eighth  President  of  the  United  States  was  the  first  of  our 
chief  magistrates  to  be  born  after  the  Revolution,  and  unlike  all  his 
predecessors,  belonged  by  descent  to  a  race  stock  other  than  those 
which  had  come  from  the  British  Isles.  His  ancestors  had  immi- 
grated to  New  Netherlands  from  Holland  and  settled  in  the.  ancient 
town  of  Kinderhook,  Columbia  County,  where  the  future  President 
was  born  in  1782.  At  an  early  age  Martin  developed  a  love  of 
politics  and  soon  became  a  local  leader  of  the  Democratic- Republi- 
can party.  He  studied  law  with  William  P.  Van  Ness,  an  eminent 
attorney  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  in  due  course  was  admitted 
to  the  bar.  He  served  for  a  time  in  the  State  Senate  of  New  York, 
was  also  Attorney  General  of  the  State,  and  in  1821  was  elected  to 
the  United  States  Senate.  Meantime,  chiefly  through  his  efforts, 
the  "  Albany  regency  "  was  formed,  which  controlled  the  Demo- 
cratic politics  of  New  York  for  many  years.  During  this  period 
Van  Buren  was  its  leader  and  his  skill  as  a  politician  soon  gave  him 
a  national  reputation.  He  was  a  clever,  shrewd  political  manager, 
but  his  methods  were  unusually  honorable.  In  personality  he  was 
small  in  stature,  and  had  keen,  searching  eyes.  In  manner  he  was 
courteous,  extremely  diplomatic  in  conversation  and  possessed  far 
greater  ability  than  some  historians  have  given  him  credit  for.  In 
1828  he  was  elected  Governor  of  New  York,  but  after  a  year's 
service  was  appointed  Secretary  of  State  by  Jackson,  and  filled  the 
office  with  fair  ability.  After  the  disruption  of  the  Cabinet  on  ac- 
count of  the  refusal  of  the  Cabinet  women  to  socially  recognize 
Mrs.  Eaton,  wife  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  Van  Buren  was  nomi- 
nated minister  to  Great  Britain,  but  the  appointment  was  rejected  by 
the  Senate,  as  we  have  seen. 

Van  Buren' s  inauguration  took  place  on  the  east  portico  of  the 
Capitol,  March  4,  1837,  in  the  presence  of  twenty  thousand  specta- 
tors. With  his  predecessor  and  patron  he  rode  to  the  Capitol  in 
a  "  beautiful  phaeton  "  built  of  wood  taken  from  the  old  frigate 
Constitution,  and  presented  to  General  Jackson  by  the  loyal  Demo- 
crats of  New  York.54  Jackson  was  the  third  President  —  and  so 
54  Shepard,  "  Life  of  Van  Buren,"  p.  242. 


512  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1837 

far  he  has  been  the  last  —  to  serve  through  his  term  and  then  leave 
office  amid  demonstrations  of  enthusiasm  equal  to  those  that  ushered 
him  in.  After  bidding  Van  Buren  farewell,  the  Old  Hero  returned 
to  Nashville,  where  he  spent  his  eight  remaining  years,  by  far  the 
most  popular  man  in  the  country,  still  courted  by  politicians,  con- 
sulted by  statesmen,  pursued  by  office  seekers,  and  idolized  by  the 
great  majority  of  his  countrymen.55 

President  Van  Buren  inherited  the  greater  part  of  Jackson's 
Cabinet  as  he  did  the  office,  but  with  them  he  also  fell  heir  to  one 
of  the  most  widespread  financial  panics  within  the  history  of  the 
country.  Jackson,  with  his  unwise  and  violent  financial  policy, 
sowed  the  wind  and  his  successor  reaped  the  conventional  crop. 
The  derangement  caused  by  the  destruction  of  the  United  States 
Bank,  the  distribution  of  the  government  funds  among  the  State 
banks  and  of  the  surplus  among  the  States,  the  issue  of  the  specie 
circular  requiring  payment  for  public  lands  to  be  made  in  specie, 
the  mania  for  speculation,  particularly  in  Western  lands,  the  general 
spirit  of  extravagance  as  shown  by  the  large  importations  of  mer- 
chandise for  which  there  was  no  legitimate  demand,  and  the  infla- 
tion of  prices,  all  contributed  to  the  disturbance  of  business  and 
the  confusion  of  the  finances  of  the  government.  During  the  last 
years  of  Jackson's  administration  these  conditions  had  been  slowly 
gathering,  and  the  storm  burst  forth  with  a  crash  just  at  the  time 
Van  Buren  assumed  the  reins  of  government.  Even  before  Jack- 
son had  retired  the  banks  had  begun  to  call  in  their  loans,  and  in 
May,  1837,  scarcely  two  months  after  Van  Buren's  inauguration, 
all  the  banks  of  New  York  city  suspended  specie  payments,  and 
were  followed  shortly  afterward  by  those  of  the  other  principal 
cities  of  the  country.56  Simultaneously  with  the  suspension  of 
specie  payments  by  the  banks  came  a  large  number  of  failures  of 
mercantile  establishments  throughout  the  country.  In  New  York- 
City  alone  over  three  hundred  failures  occurred,  involving  many 
millions  of  dollars,  and  in  Boston  the  number  exceeded  one  hundred 
and  sixty.  Credit  was  almost  paralyzed,  the  government  deposits  in 
the  "  Pet  Banks  "  were  lost,  the  surplus  was  transformed  into  a 
deficit,  prices  suffered  a  tremendous  decline,  large  numbers  of  em- 
ployees were  discharged,  and  the  domestic  tranquillity  was  disturbed 
by  bread  riots  in  some  communities,  notably  in  New  York  City, 

55  Partem.  "Life  of  Jackson,"  vol.  iii.  ch.  xliv. 
06  Shepard,  "  Life  of  Van  Buren,"  p.  274. 


JACKSON  IAN     EPOCH  513 

1837- 1S41 

where  500  barrels  of  flour  and  a  quantity  of  wheat  were  destroyed 
by  a  hungry  mob,  and  the  militia  had  to  be  called  out  to  restore 
order.57 

Petitions  and  memorials  from  various  financial  and  commer- 
cial bodies  poured  in  upon  the  President  praying  for  a  special  ses- 
sion of  Congress  and  the  enactment  of  measures  for  the  relief  of 
the  money  market.  The  Whig  journals  everywhere  fell  to  abusing 
the  President  for  refusing  to  do  something  to  relieve  the  commer- 
cial distress.  Abbot  Lawrence,  a  Boston  millionaire,  told  a  great 
meeting  that  "  there  was  no  other  people  on  the  face  of  God's  earth 
that  were  so  abused,  cheated,  plundered,  and  trampled  upon  by  their 
rulers,"  and  suggested  that  the  time  might  come  when  "  the  crew 
must  seize  the  ship."  Great  meetings  were  held  in  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Baltimore  and  other  large  cities,  and  resolutions  were 
adopted  requesting  the  President  to  summon  Congress  in  special 
session. 

After  some  hesitation  he  yielded  and  summoned  Congress  to 
meet  on  the  first  Monday  in  September.  The  President's  message 
to  the  Congress  contained  little  which  promised  relief  to  the  coun- 
try; but,  says  his  biographer,  it  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  American 
State  papers  and  marks  the  zenith  of  his  political  wisdom.58  He 
asserted  that  there  was  little  or  nothing  which  the  government 
could  do  in  the  way  of  relief.  He  declared  that  the  financial  and 
business  depression  of  the  country  had  been  caused  by  reckless 
speculation  and  bad  management  rather  than  by  the  policy  of  the 
government,  and  that  it  was  not  the  province  of  the  government  to 
correct  evils  resulting  therefrom.59 

To  reestablish  the  national  bank,  he  said,  would  be  to  disregard 
the  popular  will  twice  solemnly  and  unequivocally  expressed. 
Turning  to  the  State  banks,  which  had  held  the  government  de- 
posits, he  inquired  whether  the  evils  inherent  in  any  connection  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  banks  of  issue  were  not  such  as  to 
require  a  divorce.  Ought  the  public  moneys  be  placed  in  such  in- 
stitutions for  the  benefit  of  private  persons?  He  therefore  recom- 
mended the  establishment  of  sub-treasuries  in  which  the  funds  of  the 
government  were  to  be  kept  in  absolute  divorce  from  the  banks. 
This  was  poor  comfort  to  those  Whigs  who  were  praying  for  a  re- 

57  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  383. 

58  Shepard.    "  Life    of   Van    Buren,"    p.    279. 

59  See  his  Message  in  the  "  Statesman's  Manual,"  vol.  iii.  p.  1051  et  scq. 


514  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1837-1841 

establishment  of  a  national  bank,  and  who,  like  Webster,  believed 
that  all  the  ills  of  the  country  were  due  to  "  the  measures  of  the 
general  government  in  relation  to  the  currency."  The  proposed 
measure  was  criticised  as  only  an  administrative  arrangement  for 
the  protection  of  the  government,  and  not  for  the  relief  of  the 
people.  Congress,  however,  was  impressed  with  the  importance  of 
the  measure  and  the  Senate  promptly  passed  a  bill  embodying  the 
President's  recommendations,  but  it  failed  in  the  House.  Tenta- 
tive measures  of  relief  adopted  at  the  extra  session  were  acts 
authorizing  the  issue  of  $10,000,000  in  treasury  notes,  the  post- 
ponement of  the  surplus  distribution  among  the  States,  and  a  law 
permitting  indulgence  of  payment  to  importers  upon  custom  house 
bonds.  By  this  time  much  of  the  distress  had  disappeared,  and 
the  excitement  had  abated,  although  there  were  bitter  and  deep- 
seated  wounds  still  unhealed. 

On  October  10  the  special  session  of  Congress  adjourned.  At 
the  next  session  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill  again  passed  the 
Senate  and  was  again  rejected  by  the  House.  This  was  repeated 
at  each  session  of  Congress  until  the  last  year  of  Van  Buren's 
term,  when  the  measure  finally  passed  both  houses  and  became 
a  law.  It  was  the  most  important  legislative  act  of  his  term  and 
stands  as  the  chief  monument  of  Van  Buren's  administration. 
Repealed  for  a  short  period  upon  the  ascendency  of  the  Whigs  in 
1 84 1,  it  was  reenacted  in  1846  after  the  return  of  the  Democrats 
to  power,  and  became  a  permanent  institution  of  the  government. 
As  finally  passed  it  provided  for  the  establishment  of  suitable  vaults, 
safes,  and  the  like  for  the  keeping  of  the  public  moneys,  provided 
for  receivers-general  in  a  number  of  the  larger  cities,  required  that 
the  custodians  of  the  public  money  should  give  bonds  for  the  safe 
keeping  of  all  funds  entrusted  to  them,  and  enacted  that  all  financial 
transactions  with  the  United  States  should  be  exclusively  on  a 
gold  and  silver  basis.60 

Incidents  in  the  foreign  relations  of  the  United  States  during 
Van  Buren's  term  were  an  irritating  dispute  with  Great  Britain  con- 
cerning the  boundary  between  the  State  of  Maine  and  the  British 
possessions  of  New  Brunswick,  and  the  attempt  of  many  citizens  of 
the  United  States  to  take  part  in  an  insurrection  in  Canada.  As  a 
result  of  the  boundary  controversy  the  inhabitants  of  northeastern 
Maine  and  New  Brunswick  actually  came  to  blows  over  the  dis- 
00  Read    Kinley,    "  The   Independent   Treasury,"   pp.   82-95. 


JACKSONIAN     EPOCH  515 

1837-1841 

puted  territory.  For  a  time  a  state  of  smoldering  war  existed  in 
this  region,  and  all  efforts  to  reach  an  amicable  settlement  during 
Van  Buren's  term  were  unavailing.  Congress  authorized  the  Presi- 
dent to  call  out  50,000  volunteers,  and  placed  at  his  disposal  $10,- 
000,000  with  which  to  defend  the  claims  of  the  United  States;  but 
before  anything  could  be  done  his  term  expired.  The  Canadian 
insurrection  grew  out  of  the  widespread  discontent  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  lower  Canada  on  account  of  the  alleged  oppression  of  the 
British  Government.  With  this  discontent  a  large  number  of 
Americans,  especially  in  New  York,  warmly  sympathized.  Many 
of  the  insurgent  refugees  from  Canada  flocked  to  New  York, 
where  they  received  an  enthusiastic  welcome.  One  of  the  refugees, 
McKenzie,  the  leader  of  the  insurrection,  raised  a  body  of  volun- 
teers in  Buffalo,  and  with  their  aid  seized  Navy  Island  in  the  Ni- 
agara River,  belonging  to  Canada.  Here  he  established  a  provin- 
cial government,  and  gathered  about  him  a  collection  of  arms,  stores 
and  men. 

On  the  night  of  December  29,  1837,  a  party  of  Canadian  militia 
crossed  the  Niagara  and  seized  the  Caroline,  a  vessel  in  the  service 
of  the  insurgents,  but  on  the  American  side  of  the  river.  The 
Caroline  was  then  fired  and  sent  over  the  falls  a  wreck.  This  in- 
fringement of  neutrality  caused  intense  excitement,  not  to  say  indig- 
nation, in  the  United  States.  The  President  issued  a  proclamation 
declaring  that  the  neutrality  laws  must  be  rigidly  enforced  and  all 
offenders  punished.  At  the  same  time  General  Winfield  Scott  was 
sent  to  the  border  to  enforce  American  neutrality,  and  the  New 
York  militia  were  called  out  and  placed  under  his  command. 
Finally,  the  insurgents  abandoned  Navy  Island  in  January,  1838, 
and  the  insurrection  came  to  an  end,  although  several  incursions 
from  the  United  States  were  afterwards  made  into  Canadian  terri- 
tory. Likewise  with  regard  to  Mexico,  which  had  just  lost  Texas 
by  revolution,  the  President  maintained  an  attitude  of  neutrality, 
and  when  the  new  republic  made  overtures  for  annexation  to  the 
United  States  they  were  firmly  declined.  During  his  term,  also,  the 
second  war  with  the  Seminole  Indians  of  Florida,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made  above,  was  brought  to  a  close  after  years  of  hostility 
and  the  expenditure  of  over  $15,000,000.  Osceola  was  finally  cap- 
tured by  General  Jessup  and  sent  to  Fort  Moultrie  in  Charleston 
harbor,  where  he  was  kept  in  prison  until  his  death.  The  Seminoles 
were  now  transferred  to  the  new  Indian  Territorv  west  of  the 


516  THE     UNITED     STATES 

1837-1841 

Mississippi,  and  to-day  constitute  one  of  the  civilized  tribes  of  the 
State  of  Oklahoma. 

With  the  expiration  of  Van  Buren's  term  the  Jacksonian  epoch, 
so  called,  came  to  a  close.  The  administration  of  Van  Buren 
probably  deserves  more  credit  from  historians  than  it  has  received. 
No  suggestion  was  ever  breathed  against  his  integrity;  he  possessed 
strong  moral  courage,  and  he  reached  the  Presidency  by  political 
abilities  and  public  services  of  the  first  order.  Less  popular  than 
Jackson  he  yet  possessed  far  greater  ability  as  a  statesman,  and  had 
not  his  predecessor  bequeathed  to  him  a  great  business  panic,  which 
destroyed  the  confidence  of  the  people,  he  might  have  left  the  record 
of  a  brilliant  administration.61 

61  Sumner,  "  Life  of  Jackson,"  p.  384. 


